Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Dilutees (Pay and Status)

Mr. R. Bell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made by his Department in improving the status and prospects of civilian dilutees in Admiralty employment.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): Agreement has been reached on the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council to extend the limit of merit pay of dilutees from 9s. a week to 12s. a week in June, 1955, and to 15s. a week in April, 1956. Certain talks about improving the status of dilutees have taken place with the unions concerned, and I am hopeful that some further progress may be possible in this field.

Mr. Bell: Will my hon. Friend treat the remainder of this problem as urgent? Will he remember that some of these men have been in this status for fifteen years, and that if the engineering needs of the armament programme should be reduced before this problem is solved the Admiralty will be faced with some very acute and embarrassing personal problems?

Mr. Digby: Yes, I hope it will be possible to do something in the way of recognition of the skilled men who have done their work satisfactorily for a number of years.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that nothing will be done without full consultation with the trade unions concerned?

Mr. Digby: Certainly. I said in my reply that we are now having consultations.

Personal Case

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now grant a compassionate release to E. M. Docherty, about whose case he was informed on 11th November last.

Mr. Digby: No, Sir. A further report is awaited, but in the meantime he has been granted compassionate leave.

Mr. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman expedite consideration of this matter, for it is a very distressing domestic case, and he was informed of it early in November?

Mr. Digby: Yes, we are making inquiries, but they do take a little time.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Why treat this man differently from the First Lord of the Admiralty?

Fire, Admiralty

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many persons employed in his Department were on duty at the Admiralty when the recent fire broke out there.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many people were on duty in the Admiralty at the time of the recent fire.

Mr. Digby: Fifty, Sir, of whom 14 were employees of the Ministry of Works and four of the General Post Office.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What were these employees supposed to be doing at the time the fire broke out? Why was it left to a chance passer-by to nip in through a window to try to do what he could to arrest the conflagration?

Mr. Digby: I can answer only for Admiralty employees, and a question that concerns Ministry of Works employees should be addressed to the Minister of Works. The Admiralty employees were engaged in another part of the building.

Mr. Dugdale: Though the hon. Gentleman may be a respecter of demarcation lines between Ministries, is he aware that fire is not, and is it not possible for somebody on duty in the Admiralty, in the part belonging to the Admiralty, to transfer his duties for a moment to that part belonging to the Ministry of Works without getting into difficulty with the present Government?

Mr. Digby: As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience at the Admiralty, fire risk is taken over from 8 o'clock to 8 o'clock by the Ministry of Works. It is the position that it becomes a Ministry of Works responsibility.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is impossible for people in the Admiralty to move across to another part of the building because for the time being that part belongs to the Ministry of Works?

Mr. Digby: I am certainly not saying anything of the kind. I was merely saying that the Admiralty people were working in a different part of the building from which they could not see the fire.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could they not be more careful at the Admiralty? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is very near the Scottish office?

Oil Stocks, Far East (Compensation Claim)

Mr. Dodds: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the present position with regard to the claim by oil companies for compensation for oil stocks which disappeared in the closing days of the fighting in the Far East in the Second World War.

Mr. Digby: The claim was heard by a Singapore court in August and, on 9th September, judgment was given against the claimants. An appeal has been entered and is expected to be heard in February, 1956.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that additional information, may I ask whether the claim is in connection with the oil that we captured from the Japanese at the end of the war?

Mr. Digby: I do not think it would be right for me to comment on this matter at all as it is sub judice, and there is even the possibility of further appeals after the next case is heard.

Large Fleet Units (Disposal)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, before deciding to dispose of a number of large fleet units including aircraft carriers, he approached Commonwealth Governments to find out if they would maintain them either in commission or in reserve in their own countries.

Mr. Digby: The condition of these ships was such that we could not have recommended their acquisition by any other Navy. For the same reason there would have been no purpose in keeping them in reserve either here or overseas.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that the Admiralty is going to dispose of a number of other ships, including carriers, which are post-war ships? Will the Civil Lord undertake to approach the Commonwealth Governments before he disposes of those ships, to see whether we can disperse the Reserve Fleet in that way in the Commonwealth?

Mr. Digby: I think this Question deals with—

Mr. Callaghan: No, it does not. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood it.

Mr. Digby: We are, of course, in the closest touch with Commonwealth Governments and are well aware of their needs, and if the occasion arises we should, of course, offer them one of these ships.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise what an insipid, unimaginative, uninspiring approach this is? If there is to be a nuclear war, for goodness' sake let us disperse the Reserve Fleet. Will he take active steps? Will he approach the Commonwealth Governments to try to get some energetic action, now that the First Lord, it seems, is to have greater leisure?

Mr. Digby: The hon. Gentleman's Question related to disposal, but now he is talking of the dispersal of ships by putting them in reserve, which is a different question that we are examining at present, including the suggestions which the hon. Gentleman made during, I think, the debate on the Navy Estimates.

Commander Donaldson: Is it not a fact that other Commonwealth navies are certainly full of energy and very alert, particularly the Canadian Navy, and that if they want ships from us they will make application to find out whether there are some for disposal? Surely it is not the policy to sell our ships to other countries simply because they are for disposal?

Mr. Digby: The Canadian Navy authorities certainly are in the closest touch with us and they are very well aware of what we have to dispose.

Mr. Dugdale: But were they actually offered these particular ships?

Mr. Digby: No, Sir, they were not, for reasons stated in my original Answer.

Professional Officers (Requirements)

Miss Vickers: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the known shortage of qualified naval constructors, he will give consideration to the formation of an intermediate corps of officers with professional experience in the fields needed in Her Majesty's Dockyards.

Mr. Digby: Requirements for professional officers, both in the Dockyards and elsewhere, are at present under consideration by the Admiralty. A number of complicated and difficult issues are involved and proposals similar to that which my hon. Friend has in mind are being examined, but I can hold out little hope of an early decision.

Miss Vickers: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer gives some satisfaction, but that my object in putting the Question was to point out to him that in private industry efficiency has been increased by extra supervisory staff? Will he try the same method in Her Majesty's Dockyards? Can he include this in the dockyard scheme in order that dockyard employees may have the benefit of the increased wages in industry?

Mr. Digby: The question is being looked at in connection with the position in other departments in the Dockyards.

Married Quarters

Miss Vickers: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many homes have been built by his Department for the families of the Royal Navy in each year since 1945; how many are in the process of being built; and what is the programme for 1956–57.

Mr. Digby: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Miss Vickers: Are the wives and families who are having the benefit of these houses allowed to have security of tenure when their husbands are posted overseas?

Mr. Digby: That is a rather different question, but as a rule that would not be the case. I should like to point out that we are undertaking at present a larger programme of building married quarters than ever before.

Following is the Answer:
The decision to provide married quarters for the Royal Navy was taken in 1946 and, between 1948 and 1950, 248 were completed. The numbers completed each financial year since 31st March, 1950, are as follows:
379, 239, 587, 642, 473.
It is estimated that 635 quarters will be completed in the present financial year. Some 2,300 quarters will be in various stages of construction on 1st April, 1956, of which it is estimated that some 931 will be completed by 31st March, 1957.

Dockyard, Devonport (Development Plan)

Miss Vickers: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the reduction of the size of the Royal Navy, if he will state the future policy in regard to Her Majesty's Dockyard in Devonport.

Mr. Digby: If my hon. Friend is concerned to know whether there has been any change in the development plan for the Dockyard, the answer is "No, Sir." The plan remains as I outlined it to the Plymouth Corporation on 22nd February last. Progress depends solely on capacity to execute the work and the availability of funds.

Miss Vickers: Is my hon. Friend aware that £17 million worth of work which could have been obtained for the naval Dockyards has been put out to private industry? Is he aware mat my object in bringing the matter to his notice is that a quarter of the families in Plymouth depend for their livelihood on Devonport Dockyard? Is he aware that it is the only major industry there and that we are rather disturbed about future policy?

Mr. Digby: I can assure my hon. Friend that there was no shortage of work for the Dockyard. We have plenty of work, and if it is necessary to go outside to commercial yards it is because we have more work than we can put into existing Dockyards.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that what has been said about Devonport is equally true of Chatham?

Mr. Digby: We are well aware of Chatham's needs, and there is plenty of work for the Dockyard there as well.

Mr. Albu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recent Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General states that work in the naval Dockyards was done considerably cheaper than in private dockyards?

Mr. Digby: That consideration is very much in our minds.

Admiralty

Mr. Dugdale: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what method is used for ensuring that persons entering that part of the Admiralty now occupied by the Ministry of Works cannot, unless so authorised, enter the rest of the Admiralty.

Mr. Digby: That portion of the Admiralty building in the hands of the Ministry of Works contractors is partitioned off from the occupied part. During working hours doorkeepers are on duty at the entrances into the occupied portions and passes have to be produced to gain admittance. Ministry of Works custodians patrol the occupied portions of the building during the silent hours.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, in fact, a man got into the Ministry of Works portion? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, instead of putting out the fire, which he kindly did in the absence of the Admiralty people who were responsible, this man might have chosen to go to another part of the Admiralty? What was to prevent him?

Mr. Digby: He probably would have been able to get there, but he got into the building in a rather curious way. He climbed in through the roof into the part where the fire had broken out.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Pensions Provision

Mr. Albu: asked the Postmaster-General the annual amount to be charged to the notional trading accounts of the Post Office in recoupment of deficienscies in the past provisions of the hypothetical pension fund.

The Postmaster-General (Dr. Charles Hill): I would refer the hon. Member to the Commercial Accounts for 1953–54 which explain that a provision of £6·8 million a year is at present necessary to make good the deficiencies in past provisions.

Mr. Albu: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that he is still in his office and able to answer this difficult Question, may I ask whether he has considered the fact that the inclusion of this sum to make up past deficiencies in a fund that does not exist will have the effect of exaggerating the current loss of profit to the postal services?

Dr. Hill: It is quite right that Post Office pensions should be paid out of revenues of the Post Office and not by the taxpayer; and, similarly, when deficiencies are reported by the actuary it is right that they should be met out of Post Office revenue.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this deficiency arose over past years during which the Exchequer took very substantial profits from the Post Office? In these circumstances, ought not the Exchequer to make the contribution, and not the Post Office?

Dr. Hill: No, Sir. It is still a sound principle that there should be paid to the Exchequer amounts estimated to be the deficiency, bearing in mind that the pensions are paid out by the Exchequer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office has paid to the Exchequer about £50 million over the last 10 years? I should have thought that that would have covered any deficiency on the pension fund.

Mr. Albu: Is there not a great difference between a charge for the current actuarial cost of the fund and making up the deficiency of a fund that does not exist?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member will appreciate that as wages rise so the pension commitment rises, and it is a sound principle that what is necessary to meet the deficiency, as to meet the cost, should be paid from the revenues of the Post Office.

Cable and Wireless Limited (Chairman)

Miss Burton: asked the Postmaster-General who has been appointed as the new Chairman of Cable and Wireless Limited.

Dr. Hill: Sir Godfrey Ince, who is shortly retiring from the post of Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

Miss Burton: While not in any way denying the ability of Sir Godfrey Ince or his right to take the post, may I ask the Minister on what ground of equity, if the new Chairman is to be paid, the Government defend their position, when an old-age pensioner cannot earn more than £2 a week without having his pension reduced?

Dr. Hill: I think that the parallel is scarcely a fair and proper one. Sir Godfrey Ince is believed to be the right man for this post, and we are fortunate to have obtained his services.

Miss Burton: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the grounds for that extraordinary statement? Why should anyone with more money be allowed to keep that money and add to it, whereas those who have the least of all our people are not allowed to earn more than £2 per week extra?

Dr. Hill: I am answering a Question in relation to the appointment of a Chairman to this body. I defend the appointment as right and proper. That is the limit of my obligation in the matter.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Would it not have been better to promote a younger man from within the concern? What incentive can there be to the employees in the firm to do their work when such things as this are done?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a second full-time managing director was appointed to this body in March last year. This is the appointment of a Chairman, and the broad experience of Sir Godfrey Ince is believed to be needed.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand that Sir Godfrey will draw a second pension as a result of his service with Cable and Wireless Limited?

Dr. Hill: Sir Godfrey's service with Cable and Wireless Limited will be non-pensionable.

Savings Certificates (Leaflets)

Mr. McKibbin: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the latest leaflets available in banks and post offices about National Savings Certificates are dated November, 1954; and, in view of the need for stimulating National Savings, he will see that up-to-date leaflets giving information about the additional number of units of the current ninth issue which may now be held, will be made available as soon as possible.

Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir. The existing leaflets, of which there are large stocks, are being amended as fast as possible pending their replacement by a new issue.

Mr. McKibbin: I am delighted that a new amendment slip has been issued since I put down my Question on 6th December; but will my right hon. Friend call the attention of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that the current issue of National Savings Certificates was first available on 1st February, 1951, when the Bank Rate was 2 per cent., and that the Government should now make a further issue available at more favourable terms, which would be more in line with current interest rates and would encourage small savings?

Dr. Hill: I am concerned with the first part of the supplementary question. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed to learn that the issue of the slip began before he put down his Question.

Books and Periodicals (Postal Charges)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the decision of the Universal Postal Union that books should receive the same postage reductions as newspapers; and whether he will take action to implement this.

Dr. Hill: The Universal Postal Convention relates to rates of postage on articles which are being sent overseas. The overseas rates are not being changed.

Mr. Jeger: Did not the agreement reached in 1952, to which we were a


party, by the Universal Postal Union Congress state that there should be reductions on book postage similar to those granted in respect of newspaper postage?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but it refers to overseas and not to inland post. I would tell him that in our overseas post books enjoy the same rate as newspapers and periodicals.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider the proposed increase in postal charges, in view of the representations of the National Book League.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Postmaster-General what reply he has sent to the protest of the National Book League against his decision to increase the postal charges on the transmission of books and periodicals by post.

Dr. Hill: I have carefully considered the increases in inland postal charges for books and periodicals, approved by this House on 14th November. I have felt bound to conclude that, bearing in mind the loss of some £2 million on the inland printed paper service, the new scale is inevitable.

Mr. Jeger: Does not the Postmaster-General agree that this places an unfair burden on book postage, and that it means that other not so essential matter which is sent through the post gets preferential treatment? Should he not bear in mind that we want to encourage greater dissemination of literature and culture through the post, particularly to rural and backward areas, than occurs at the moment?

Dr. Hill: I am in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's general sentiment, but £2 million is being lost on the inland printed paper rate. As the House approved the White Paper, the only reasonable course to be followed is to seek to reduce that loss. Even with the proposed increased rates, there is still a loss on the inland postal services.

Postal Service, Beckley

Mr. Godman Irvine: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the continued dissatisfaction in the village of Beckley with the postal service introduced on 26th September last, he will arrange for an investigation into the working of the present service to be undertaken by an

inspector who is unconnected with the area and, in particular, to restore the previous arrangement for collections at 12.30 and 18.30 as the present collections at 10.35 and 16.15 have proved not to meet the local needs.

Dr. Hill: I am having the services thoroughly reviewed and will write to my hon. Friend early in the New Year, when the review has been completed.

Mail Handling (Review)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Postmaster-General when he will select the outside organisation to review the Post Office's methods of handling mail, as foreshadowed in paragraph 19 of the Report on Post Office Development and Finance, Command Paper No. 9756; and if he will now give an estimate of the cost involved.

Dr. Hill: Messrs. Harold Whitehead and Partners has been asked to undertake the assignment. The time required cannot be clearly assessed at this stage, but I estimate the probable cost at about 10,000.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Postmaster-General say why it is necessary to bring in this outside organisation to do this job? Is there not a very efficient organisation in the Government service called the Organisation and Methods Division which has done exactly this kind of job and done so on a much more economical scale? Why bring in an outside body?

Dr. Hill: There are internal organisations in the Post Office and there is the O. and M. branch of the Treasury, as the hon. Gentleman suggests; but it seemed to me that it would be useful if there were a detailed scrutiny of some sample sorting offices by an external body, in order that we might be certain that our methods are the most efficient.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Domestic Installations, Blind Persons (Charge)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received from, or on behalf of, blind persons or from interested organisations in respect of a decrease in the charge for domestic telephone installations used by blind persons.

Dr. Hill: About a dozen letters have been received. Much as I sympathise with blind persons I could not justify charging them less than the standard price for their telephone service.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some reduction in licence fees for wireless for the blind? What is the difference between that and my proposal?

Dr. Hill: There is, of course, a reduction in the composite licence fee and a free sound licence for the blind. Also, there is a reduction in postal costs for braille books. However, any step in the direction which the hon. Member suggests would open the door wide to many other claims of equal, or nearly equal, validity, and would raise grave difficulties for the Post Office.

Feltham and Hanworth

Mr. Hunter: asked the Postmaster-General when telephone kiosks will be provided on the Sparrow Farm Housing Estate, Feltham, and the Butts Farm Housing Estate, Hanworth.

Dr. Hill: Two kiosks will be provided on the Sparrow Farm Estate by next summer; two more will be provided when the pavements in the shopping centre are made up. There are already five kiosks on the Butts Farm Estate, and a site for a sixth has been tentatively agreed with the local authority.

Mr. Hunter: While appreciating the desire of the Postmaster-General to help these two large housing estates, I should like to ask him whether the Post Office could not look ahead regarding these estates. Some of these large housing estates often take four or five years to build. Why should they be finished before the Post Office comes along to instal public telephones? Surely while the estates are being built, public telephones could be installed. I ask the Postmaster-General to give consideration to that.

Dr. Hill: I appreciate the point. In neither of the two cases which the hon. Gentleman has quoted has the estate been finished. The Post Office itself has considerable difficulties—problems anyway —with the local authorities which cannot be resolved until the estate is under way.

Poles

Mr. Fort: asked the Postmaster-General the total cost of the untreated telegraph and telephone poles bought during the last three years; and the total cost of their storage treatment and classification.

Dr. Hill: The figures for the three years ended 31st December. 1954, are £1,101,000 and £383,000.

Mr. Fort: asked the Postmaster-General how many telegraph and telephone poles have been put up on an average each year for the last three years; their total cost, excluding the cost of erection; and the average cost for each pole.

Dr. Hill: For the three years ended 31st December, 1954, the figures are 124,000, £1,360,000 and £3 14s.

Mr. Fort: Can my right hon. Friend give any estimate by his Department of how much these very large sums of money could be reduced by using poles which were not carefully chosen to be as straight as are present telephone poles, but which are more in conformity with the customs of other countries?

Dr. Hill: I have been trying to obtain figures for crooked poles, but I must say to my hon. Friend that there are amenity considerations, the increased cost of transport and storage and the increased cost of creosoting. There are also safety considerations to be taken into account.

Toll Area Subscribers

Mr. Russell: asked the Postmaster-General when it will be possible for those telephone subscribers on exchanges in the toll areas, whose numbers can be dialled by subscribers in London, to dial London numbers.

Dr. Hill: Subscribers on 32 of these exchanges can already dial numbers in central London. This facility will be made available to subscribers on about 40 more exchanges in the next five years.

Kiosks, Leyton (Malicious Damage)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General the increase or decrease in the number of incidents of malicious damage to telephone installations in kiosks in


Leyton during the past 12 months, compared with the previous three years; and how many culprits have been detected and prosecuted.

Dr. Hill: During this year 110 cases of malicious damage to apparatus have been reported; corresponding figures for previous years are not available. No culprits have yet been detected.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman rather concerned about this trouble which, I presume, applies also to other areas? Can he say what efforts are being made to prevent this malicious damage and to apprehend the culprits?

Dr. Hill: I am very concerned. Without having a statistical basis, I would say that this is a bad area, especially in the matter of broken windows in kiosks—

Mr. Sorensen: Only in that respect.

Dr. Hill: I was referring to that only. The detection of culprits is exceedingly difficult, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, because of the very character of the kiosks. We are doing what we can.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the pilfering of directories and damage caused to them when they are left in these kiosks? Would it be possible to do something about chaining them up?

Dr. Hill: There is a great deal of damage. I will look into that suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Reception, Scotland

Commander Donaldson: asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he is aware of the poor radio sound reception in the borders of Scotland, and of the serious interruption caused by interference from foreign stations; if, in view of this, he will make a statement regarding the setting-up of a very high frequency transmitter in the area; and when the work will commence;
(2) if he is aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation are prepared to improve its sound services in the borders of Scotland as soon as permission to do so has been obtained from the Government; and when such Government approval is to be given.

Dr. Hill: I am aware of this interference which is caused by a station in Spain. We are doing our best to persuade the Spanish authorities to clear the trouble.
I am looking into the question of V.H.F. development in this area, and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Commander Donaldson: But is my right hon. Friend not aware that there has already been some form of anouncement on the Border that a V.H.F. station is to be established, possibly in Galashiels, and that the question is when the work will commence on it? In relation to the second Question, will the Government give to the B.B.C. support which it is reported to be seeking from the Government to assist it in connection with the existing station?

Dr. Hill: The station to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers in his first Question is in contemplation. A decision has not been finally reached but I hope that it will be reached soon, when I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. G. Jeger: In view of the statement that interference is coming from Spain, will the right hon. Gentleman give careful and urgent consideration to proposals for a broadcasting station for Gibraltar?

Dr. Hill: I am at the moment giving consideration to that proposal.

Independent Television Authority

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Postmaster-General what action he is taking with the Independent Television Authority to prevent a repetition of the extension of advertisements beyond natural breaks in the programme such as occurred during the televising of a boxing match on the evening of Tuesday, 15th November.

Miss Burton: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that there was a breach of Section 4 of the Television Act, 1954, during the broadcast of "Sports-view" by the Independent Television Authority on Wednesday, 16th November; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Dr. Hill: With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 19 and 28 together. The responsibility for ensuring that the programme contractors


comply with the Television Act, 1954—

Mr. Ness Edwards: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the two Questions deal with entirely different principles, ought the right hon. Gentleman to ask for permission to treat them as one in his Answer?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman should listen to the answer. If it does not cover both Questions, we will see what we can do about it by way of supplementary questions.

Dr. Hill: The responsibility for ensuring that the programme contractors comply with the Television Act, 1954, rests on the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that he has some responsibility to ensure that an Act passed by Parliament is enforced, and that this breach must have been deliberate because the duration of advertisements and the duration of the interval betw1een rounds of a boxing match are known beforehand accurately by the programme contractors? It must have been a deliberate breach of the law.

Dr. Hill: Technically, in law, the responsibility rests on the Authority. In the particular case, the Authority informs me that, due to an error of timing, a 60-second advertisement ran over into the actual boxing. The Authority is doing its utmost, as far as is possible, to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen again.

Miss Burton: Might I ask the Postmaster-General, in regard to Question No. 28, which deals with another day, whether the same condition applies, and what reasons were given to him for the insertion of an advertisement about Esso petrol in the middle of the "Sportsview" programme, for which there was no necessity at all?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Lady, in her Question, did not make clear the exact advertisement to which she was referring. I will gladly look into the point which she raises, and pass it to the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not seriously putting that one over to the House? He knows that there was only one advertisement pushed in. He knows that the programme was broken by the very person who was running it in order to get this plug in the middle of "Sportsview." There was only one advertisement. Surely there can be no mistake? Is it not time the right hon. Gentleman tried to get the I.T.A. and the programme contractors to conform with the undertakings given in this House?

Dr. Hill: I assure the hon. Lady that I quite honestly assumed that it was another incident which she had in mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many more have there been?"] I will gladly look into it, and pass it to the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter? It is a deliberate process of exploiting the provision of the law about natural breaks. Everybody who looks at the programme realises that the spirit of the law is being broken. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has some responsibility to the House in the matter?

Dr. Hill: I recognise my responsibility. It would be a pity for the right hon. Gentleman to speak of "deliberate breaches of the law." Parliament has established the Independent Television Authority, and I suggest that we should give that Authority our full confidence and support in the difficult task that lies before it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Arising out of what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to a supplementary question, is it within his knowledge that there have been lots of cases in which the law has been broken?

Dr. Hill: I did not say that. What I said to the hon. Lady was that the instance of a certain advertisement for Esso petrol which she quoted was not the one to which I surmised she might be referring. I did not suggest that the other was illegal. I merely gave the frank answer that I thought she had something else in mind, and I added that I would look into the point which she raised.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what cases there have been, within his knowledge, besides those referred to by my hon. Friends?

Dr. Hill: No, Sir. Thank goodness I do not watch all the television programmes. If hon. Members have doubts or points, they will no doubt raise them.

Mr. G. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman watch very carefully, if not the actual programmes, these instances of a breach of the law, which are becoming increasingly frequent, and which many of us regard as being the thin end of the wedge? Will he ensure that the wedge does not get any thicker?

Dr. Hill: I will deal faithfully with such instances as are brought to my notice, provided that it is borne in mind that the Television Act places the responsibility upon the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many breaches of the law have been brought to his notice?

Dr. Hill: I think I am right in saying that three or four alleged breaches of the law have been brought to my notice.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the intrusion into every broadcast of a programme known as "Double Your Money" of an advertisement which is a breach of Section 4 (6) of the Television Act, 1954; and if he will exercise his power under Section 4 (5) of the Act to prevent this form of sponsoring.

Dr. Hill: The responsibility of ensuring that the programme contractors comply with Section 4 (6) of the Television Act rests on the Independent Television Authority and is not dependent on the issue of directions under Section 4 (5) or any other Sections of the Act.

Mr. Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is really a breach and that this is in fact a system of sponsorship about which we had continuous undertakings from the Government side of the House that it would not be allowed on commercial television? Will the right hon. Gentleman exercise his responsibility to this House, whatever may be in the Act, to ensure that the American system is not further introduced into commercial television?

Dr. Hill: There is nothing in the Act —if I may state this objectively for a moment—that prevents live appearances, and nothing which prevents the appearance of the same person in an advertisement and in a programme. At the same time, there is the requirement that the advertisements should be distinguishable, the requirement about breaks, and, of course, the requirement that the advertiser should not influence, or appear to influence, a programme. I have brought this to the notice of the I.T.A. I am informed that programme contractors are experimenting, with the approval of the I.T.A., in the various types of advertising. The I.T.A. is watching the position very carefully. I shall keep in touch with the I.T.A. in order to prevent what the Act does not allow—sponsoring.

Mr. Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is about the fifth time that this sort of thing has happened in that programme; that now it has been carried one step further, and the person conducting the programme will himself receive payment from the advertiser? How can it be said that the advertiser is not influencing the programme when his instrument is being intruded into the programme itself?

Dr. Hill: If there is evidence—and it is not yet forthcoming—that in fact the advertisers have influenced the programme—that the advertisers have paid towards the programme—and if the right hon. Gentleman will give me that evidence, then, of course, I will pass it to the I.T.A. and ensure that the Act is observed.

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with the Independent Television Authority concerning the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised.

Dr. Hill: I would refer the right hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply on 14th December to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards).

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has in fact held such consultations, and, if so, whether he is to inform us of their outcome?

Dr. Hill: Under Section 8 of the Television Act, 1954, the Independent Television Authority is required to consult the Advisory Committee. It did so consult, and in broad terms accepted the recommendations of that Advisory Committee. These were reported to me in early summer. It seemed to me that the recommendations were sound. I agreed, in so far as I was concerned, and the code was placed in the Library in June this year.

Events of National Interest (Discussions)

Mr. Allaun: asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the delay in obtaining agreement between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority about televising events of national interest, he will issue regulations under Section 7 of the Television Act, 1954, so that Parliament can decide the issue.

Dr. Hill: I would prefer the two broadcasting authorities to reach a voluntary agreement in this matter and I therefore propose to await the outcome of the discussions now proceeding between them.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Postmaster-General aware that a British commercial programme company has applied for the exclusive rights to televise next year's Olympic Games? Will he, in the interests of fair play, allow Parliament to decide when these rights should be shared with the B.B.C., which alone can provide nation-wide coverage?

Dr. Hill: That supplementary question is the subject of a separate and later Question on the Order Paper. In general I would say that I prefer voluntary agreement to be reached on this matter rather than make regulations.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Postmaster-General why he invited the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Director-General of the Independent Television Authority to meet him on 14th November to discuss the televising of Test matches.

Dr. Hill: To receive a first-hand report of progress on the talks between them about the televising of sporting events of national interest. The meeting was on 11th November.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Postmaster-General appreciate how widely he has created the impression that he has intervened on behalf of commercial interests when public enterprise has clearly won the day? Does his action in this instance not sharply contrast with his failure to intervene in the case of the Olympic Games, to which I have just referred?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member is most unfair on the subject of the Olympic Games, as he will see when I subsequently answer the Question to which I referred. The position was that last August I asked the two broadcasting bodies to get together to discuss an appropriate list of themes for non-exclusive showing to be presented to me. While these discussions were proceeding, I read that an exclusive arrangement had been entered into, and so I invited the bodies concerned to come and explain to me the progress of the discussions. In fact, it was found that it was not an exclusive arrangement which had been entered into, but I really must be free in such matters to meet the two bodies and discuss problems arising.

Mr. Gower: Is it not desirable that Test matches should be transmitted on the B.B.C. television service, the I.T.A., in broadcasts in sound, and, indeed, through all other available media?

Dr. Hill: The appropriate Section of the Television Act contemplates a number of events of national interest—sporting and others—which shall not be the subject of exclusive showing. I am seeking, with good will and common sense, to reach an agreement with the bodies on the subject.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Postmaster-General not aware of the fact that he has given the impression that he showed great and indecent haste in protecting commercial television on this occasion? As this matter has been hanging about for quite six months, ought he not, in an objective way, himself to decide what regulations shall be agreed and what instructions shall be carried out in relation to the non-monopoly of these events of national interest?

Dr. Hill: That suggestion comes oddly when on the Order Paper today there are invitations to me to intervene by making regulations. I am seeking to act fairly between the two bodies. The suggestion of intervention in protection of one body


against the other is unfounded. As for the time, I hope shortly to receive some agreed suggestions from the two bodies.

Mr. Edwards: Does that mean that the Postmaster-General will report to the House the nature of that agreement, and seek its approval?

Dr. Hill: In one form or another, yes.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will not the effect of the Postmaster-General's intervention be that there will be no variety and no competition and that all these stations will be broadcasting the same programmes at the same time, whereas if the B.B.C. had a second programme, there would be real variety for the viewers?

Dr. Hill: I am carrying out the terms of the Television Act.

Olympic Games (Negotiations)

Miss Burton: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that British commercial television is negotiating for exclusive world rights in next year's Olympic Games in Melbourne; and if, in view of protests against the granting of sole rights which have been made by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Newsreel Association of Great Britain, he will make a further statement concerning his policy on the making of regulations under Section 7 of the Television Act, 1954.

Dr. Hill: These negotiations came to my notice within the last day or two and I am making inquiries.

Miss Burton: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit? Is it true that representatives of commercial television are now in Australia to discuss matters with the people concerned? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is true that the option expires this week, and, if that is so, when does he propose to look into the matter?

Dr. Hill: I have begun to look into the matter. So far I have had conflicting reports, one that an arrangement has been entered into and another that the discussions have broken down. I assure the hon. Lady that I am much concerned about this matter and I am looking into it so as to get the facts right. Then, in the light of the facts, I will determine what shall be done.

Miss Burton: The right hon. Gentleman is empowered to take action under Section 7. If the option expires this week and if this right is granted to commercial television, what does he propose to do about it?

Dr. Hill: I have a good deal of sympathy with what is in the mind of the hon. Lady. I must get the facts right first. I assure her that I will take the necessary action to secure that the appropriate Section of the Act is observed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Prestwick Pioneer Aircraft

Sir T. Moore: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of their unusual technical performance, he will consider extending the use of the Prestwick Pioneer and Twin Pioneer aircraft by the Royal Air Force.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): rose—

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. Is this the Under-Secretary of State for Air?

Mr. Speaker: It does not matter to me: I know nothing about these things. One member of the Government is entitled to answer for another. Certainly, to my recollection, the hon. Gentleman was Under-Secretary of State for Air when the Question was put down.

Mr. Ward: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to reply.
I cannot at present add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 5th December.

Sir T. Moore: As these Scottish machines demonstrated their quite unusual capacity at Farnborough this year, as was vouched for by the former Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, does not my hon. Friend think that there is a wider scope for their use throughout his former Department?

Mr. Ward: This aircraft has been of particular value in Malaya, because of its short take-off and landing run. We have learned a lot from operating it there, and we appreciate the excellence of its performance, but I cannot promise that we shall be able to extend its use to other theatres.

Departmental Accountancy and Economy

Mr. Swingler: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what action has been taken, as a result of investigations by the Committee of Public Accounts, to improve the standards of accountancy and economy in his Department.

Mr. Ward: Before the Public Accounts Committee reported on this matter, improvements had already been made in the distribution of stocks, in the manning and equipment of the depots, and in methods of store accounting. The question is being further examined in consultation with the Treasury in the light of the Committee's Report and a full statement will be furnished to the Committee in the usual Treasury Minute. As the hon. Member knows, the normal practice is for the Committee to present this Minute to the House shortly afterwards as an appendix to one of its own Reports.

Mr. Swingler: While personally wishing the hon. Gentleman well in his new post, may I ask him whether he will draw the attention of his successor to the very severe strictures in the latest Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, published on 17th November, in which attention is drawn to the fact that his Department, and the other Service Departments, have done nothing about the Report of five years earlier? Is he aware that the latest Report says that:
… serious shortcomings in administration and in storekeeping and accounting still persist in all the Services some five years after the comments of the Public Accounts Committee of Session 1950.
Can the hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that the really shocking disclosures made in the latest Report will galvanise the Service Departments into some action to get a higher standard of economy and efficiency?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir, we have taken quite extensive measures to put matters right. I think that it would be better to wait for the details until a full statement can be made to the Committee of Public Accounts, but I can say that auditing test checks over the past year have confirmed that supervisory measures at stocktaking are now satisfactory, that the stocktaking programme is running to schedule, that the stocktaking results are much more reliable and that recording errors are comparatively rare. I assure

the hon. Member that we are not complacent about this and we shall continue trying to improve the machinery wherever we can.

Rain-making Experiments, Salisbury Plain

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how much money has been spent on rain-making experiments on Salisbury Plain this year; and what results have been achieved.

Mr. Ward: The experiments carried out so far have cost about £800. As I explained to the hon. Member in June, many more of these experiments will need to be made before we can be sure that the rainfall is affected. We are now proposing to extend the tests to hill country in the North of England.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Under-Secretary of State look at this in future particularly from the point of view of having experiments in those parts of the country which have not had rain and which would benefit very much? Since he is now going to the Admiralty, will he take his rain-making experiments with him, as the First Lord has just "gone up in flames"?

Mr. Ward: I am afraid that I cannot take the responsibility for rain-making experiments away from the Meteorological Office, but I shall certainly take my enthusiasm with me. Regarding the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we are to try these tests on the Pennines first, because we think there will be an advantage in having these burners on the high ground where, if the experiments work, they will benefit that part of the country, but there is no guarantee that they will work.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: is my right hon. Friend aware that in Dorset we are congratulating ourselves on the dry weather which we have had this year, and that we attribute it to his success in producing showers on Salisbury Plain?

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister give the water authorities in County Durham any information about whether his experiments are likely to succeed there in the near future?

Mr. Ward: I wish I could. All I can say is that we shall do our best, but these things are purely experimental.

Doctors, Washington Hall (Terminated Contracts)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that doctors who served at weekends at the Home Office Civil Defence Training Establishment, Washington Hall, Chorley, Lancashire, had their contracts cancelled without notice and without compensation although they had been assured in writing that their services would be required for at least two years and had made arrangements accordingly; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ward: Three civilian doctors were employed at Washington Hall, Chorley, to examine Royal Air Forces reservists undergoing initial training as fire-fighters. As a result of the recent decision to restrict the Reserve training of National Service men, airmen who are allocated for training as fire-fighters will in future complete the course at Washington Hall during their whole-time service. Before beginning it, they will be examined by Royal Air Force doctors at their units. The three civilian doctors are therefore no longer required, and their contracts were accordingly terminated at one month's notice. If claims for compensation are submitted, we shall, of course, be willing to consider them.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that, as indicated in my Question, the doctors received a written assurance, signed by a group captain, that the jobs would subsist for not less than two years? Will that fact be taken into account when considering the question of compensation?

Mr. Ward: Yes, but we must also remember that less than a month later these doctors signed a formal agreement which in my view made it reasonably clear that the agreement could be terminated at one month's notice; and the letter from 63 Group, to which the hon. Member refers, was, I think, merely an expression of intent given in good faith without knowledge that there was likely to be a change in policy.

Personal Case

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why his Department, after consenting to a few days early release for an airman, whose name has been sent to him, to take up residence at college, subsequently only allowed an

early release conditional upon the loss of a month's pay, a month's ration allowance, £8 clothing allowance and railway fare home.

Mr. Ward: For reasons which I have explained to the right hon. Member in correspondence, this airman was not entitled, in the circumstances in which he was released, to discharge leave or the benefits which normally go with it. He was told that this would be so before his release was approved.

Mr. Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this young man was told in February this year that he could have his release to go to college and that, as he admits in his letter to me, the whole matter was badly handled at Command stage? Ought not this to have been avoided by giving the boy weekend leave to take up residence in college and then for him to have come back to serve the rest of his time in the Forces? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a scandalous business to give a young man release a few days early and then penalise him to the extent of nearly £40? As the hon. Gentleman is going to another Department, and as it is Christmas time, could he not do the decent thing, and try to remove this scandalous stain on his Department?

Mr. Ward: This airman's application was not approved until the end of September. Immediately before then he was interviewed by an officer of his unit, and it was explained to him that he would not be entitled to these benefits, and the man confirmed that he wished to go. There was no question of earlier consent or failure to make clear the conditions. However, as there seems to have been some misunderstanding in the matter, we have taken steps to see that, when a man puts in an application of this kind, it is made clear to him exactly what it entails and also that it is not definitely approved until he has something in writing.

Mr. Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in his own letter he admits that the situation was extremely badly handled? He has already put that in a letter to me. Further, is he not aware that this young man was told in February that release would be arranged for him to take up his college studies? Does the hon. Gentleman mean that this young


man should forfeit twelve months of college life in order to satisfy the ridiculous demands of his commanding officer and the Department?

Mr. Ward: This matter arises on a difference on fact between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I assure him that my information is that the application was not approved until September, and therefore he is not entitled to think that it was approved in February.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Under-Secretary agree that in all three Services it has always been the custom to allow release in time to take up an educational course? That has always been done. Is he aware that to penalise a young man heavily financially is just the sort of thing which makes National Service intolerable?

Mr. Ward: This man is a Regular, he is not a National Service man. The rules have not been changed. They are exactly the same as, I have no doubt, they were in the right hon. Gentleman's day. Of course, whatever rules are laid down —and we must make rules—there are bound to be some people who will fall just on the wrong side of the line. While I sympathise with this man, I must say that if we altered the rules to suit him, we should get into a muddle.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we feel that this is a most unfair action on the part of the Air Ministry? We cannot see why this man should be deprived of a month's pay and a month's ration allowance and so on. Will the Minister intimate that he will have another look at the case? It is not a great deal to ask, and as he is leaving the Ministry, it would be a nice gesture on his part if, before he went, he could put this matter right.

Mr. Ward: There is nothing that would please me more than to make a nice gesture before I leave. But this is a matter affecting all three Services. These rules are not peculiar to the Air Ministry. If we altered the rules for the Air Ministry, we should have to alter them for all three Services, and that is not a gesture which I can make now. These rules have been in force for a long time, and this is the first case of any difficulty which has arisen.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Under-Secretary agree that in practice this has never been done before in the Services? Certainly I do not remember any such case when I was at the War Office, and I do not remember any in the time of my successors. Will not the hon. Gentleman look into the question of there being any necessity to do this? I do not agree that there is any necessity, and I am sure that the rule could be applied quite agreeably.

Mr. Ward: Somehow or other we have to draw a line, and a line has been drawn. This man fell short of it by eight days. I agree that it seems hard, but there will be a lot of similar cases. We have to accept the fact that if we made an exception for this man, we should have to do it for everyone else. I am not prepared now to give an assurance that we should do that. There are implications in such a decision which go beyond the Air Ministry, as I have tried to explain. Certainly, I shall bring the matter to the notice of my successor and ask him to have a look at it, but beyond that I cannot go.

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly there has to be a rule of some kind or another, but we have the impression that the rule has been harshly administered in this case. I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is now the ex-Under-Secretary of State for Air, to confer with his right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the Treasury are also involved—and incidentally, we warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Leader of the House—to see whether something cannot be done to meet this case.

Mr. Edwards: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall refrain from attempting to raise this matter on the Adjournment—it would be the first time I had given such an intimation in ten years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do the decent thing in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Ports (Mechanisation)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is satisfied that the rate of mechanisation in handling shipments in


British ports is keeping pace with that in Continental ports; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The pace of mechanisation must depend on the local conditions, which vary from port to port, and no absolute comparison can be made between United Kingdom and Continental ports. But I think the United Kingdom ports have made some progress, especially in the handling of bulk cargoes.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he note that a lot of people are not very happy about the rate of mechanisation in British ports? For example, is he aware that there are more fork-lift trucks in one large motor car factory than in the whole of the Port of London?

Mr. Molson: I am aware that the Ports Efficiency Committee, which reported in 1952, said that mechanisation had been disappointingly slow in ports. It referred to the need for employers to be certain that mechanical equipment would be fully used, and for employees to appreciate that despite possible individual redundancy mechanisation would be to the ultimate advantage of labour and of the whole country.

CYPRUS

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. E. FLETCHER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement about the progress of negotiations with regard to the future constitution of Cyprus.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the situation in Cyprus.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lennox-Boyd. Questions Nos. 79 and 82.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Since the debate on 5th December, Her Majesty's Government have continued with their efforts to reach a political settlement in Cyprus. Last week my right

hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary had discussions in Paris wth the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs and with the Secretary-General of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The question is still under close examination. I am sure the House will share my anxiety that nothing should now be said which might affect adversely the results of these continuing discussions.
As regards events in Cyprus itself, I regret to say that terrorist outrages have continued, involving further loss of life and casualties. During the last week three members of the security forces were killed and seventeen wounded. One terrorist has been killed and nine captured.
The security forces have achieved some positive successes. A terrorist "hideout" was raided in the caves at Spilia near Mount Olympus and, though a number of the terrorists escaped, a quantity of arms and ammunition was captured. Following an ambush of an army vehicle and the shooting of its driver, Major B. J. Coombe, who was with him, gallantly engaged the ambushing party and shot dead one of them, a terrorist with a price on his head, and captured two others. On the following day a car containing six armed terrorists was captured.
On 14th December the Governor proscribed the Communist organisation AKEL and, following this, a number of Communist leaders were detained. The proscription of this subversive organisation has been effected without any major incidents.
Recent successes have been encouraging. The Governor is satisfied that the security organisation has now been set up on sound lines on a three-member team basis, namely, civil administration, police and Armed Forces working together, served by a properly co-ordinated intelligence system and a unified publicity section.
Plans for improvement and expansion of the police force have been completed and a start has been made at putting them into effect. But much remains to be done both as regards improving resources in men and equipment—and that is being dealt with as rapidly as possible—and as regards training of the security forces for their peculiar tasks in current conditions. The Governor has reported to me that he is fully satisfied with the support


he is getting from Her Majesty's Government over building up the security organisation and making good its deficiencies.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State realise that we are deeply concerned at the way in which these negotiations seem to be dragging on? Before we part for the Christmas Recess, will he now tell the House what precise negotiations are proceeding at this moment, and between whom? Are the negotiations going on between the Governor and Archbishop Makarios? Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us whether, in the course of the meeting of N.A.T.O. last week, the United States was brought into these negotiations—and if so, for what purpose or reason?
Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what is the difference which prevents the settlement which we all hope for and desire? I hope that he will realise that we have exercised great restraint and patience in this matter. Before we rise for a very long time, we would press him, in view of the serious situation in Cyprus, to be more precise and give us more information. Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman again consider the suggestion that I made in our recent debate—this seems an opportune time to do so—that the Governor might ask Archbishop Makarios to join him in an appeal for quietness and the end of violence, so that there can be peace in Cyprus whilst these negotiations are pending? Indeed, such a gesture might create a new spirit in which the negotiations might succeed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I do not think that it would be disclosing what took place between the Governor and the Archbishop at various meetings which occurred some time ago if I said that, quite clearly, requests that the Archbishop should condemn terrorism were made more than once by the Governor. I recognise how extremely patient and understanding the whole House has been, and I am very sorry if I cannot give answers to the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman on this last day before we rise for the Christmas Recess, but I am afraid that it would not be possible to do so, and I cannot add to the Answer that I have given. It would, of course, be possible to bring an end to what are long-drawn-out negotiations, but

to do that while there is still a hope that they might be successful would, I think, be a most unwise thing to do. I am afraid that I cannot say at this moment who are taking part in these negotiations or what stage has been reached.

Mr. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us now whether, since our last debate, the Government them-selves have put forward any further proposals with a view to ending these negotiations in a settlement? Is it true that, as has been reported in the Press, the United States has been brought into these negotiations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is for the United States Government to answer about their own actions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It would be contrary to all practice and precedent if, in the middle of negotiations in which a number of people are concerned, premature announcements were made. I know that, upon reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that he would give the same sort of answer if he were in my position today.

Mr. Gaitskell: We all recognise the great importance of bringing these negotiations, such as they are—we have not heard much about them—to a successful conclusion, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: since, as is evident to us all, one of the difficult features of the situation is the problem of laying down conditions which are acceptable to Turkey—and, indeed, the whole question of Greco-Turkish relations—can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any discussions have taken place within N.A.T.O., or with other members of N.A.T.O., about the whole situation, or are the negotiations being conducted simply upon a basis of being between ourselves, Greece and Turkey alone?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Despite the rather ingenious way in which the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to elicit further information—which I believe would really be harmful to the progress of the talks—I am afraid that I cannot meet him. I can say that were it not for the fact that Turkish interests were involved, and that this was more an international than a colonial problem, a way out of this difficulty could have been found long ago. Clearly the Turks are very much concerned in the problem, but the Turks


also have interests and problems in the Middle East which extend far beyond N.A.T.O.—and they are interests and problems with which Greece is not directly concerned.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Is it not the case that one of the difficulties is that on 7th December Archbishop Makarios issued a statement going back on his three-point demands of 13th October, even though they had been accepted in a House of Commons debate on 5th December?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is so.

Mr. Strachey: Will the Colonial Secretary confirm or deny that in fact there has been no meeting between the Governor and the Archbishop since 21st November last? Does not he agree that the tragedy of this matter is that the Government have been behind events at every stage? Will they now come up to the situation and bridge the very small gap which exists between the Government's terms and the Archbishop's latest proposals, which are pretty clear and would form an acceptable basis if the Government would go just that further step which they have come very near to taking?

Mr. Maitland: Would not my right hon. Friend say that the gap is getting wider?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that whether it is a very small gap or a wider gap it certainly will not be closed by any premature statement by me in the House.

Major Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have the very greatest confidence in the way in which he has been handling these extremely difficult negotiations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We fully appreciate the difficulties about the making of a full statement today. May I ask him a question on one small though important point? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the broadcasts from Athens radio, coming as they do from a country with which we have—and wish to maintain —the very friendliest relations, have caused very deep resentment in the House?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. That is indeed the case. It would be a major

contribution to a calming of the situation if those broadcasts were called off. The Greek Government cannot disclaim considerable responsibility for them.

Mrs. L. Jeger: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that he is putting many hon. Members of this House in an impossibly unfair position by asking them, over a long period, to be moderate and not to press him? Is he aware that in the Press we have seen reports on behalf of the Archbishop that no negotiations are taking place; and that many of us are deeply suspicious of this continuing talk about negotiations? Is he not aware that the position in Cyprus is deteriorating fast? Is that not perhaps the reason why the right hon. Gentleman is so bashful in not bringing his policy before the House?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I am quite prepared to bring my policy—or the Government's policy—in this matter before the House at any stage save this, because while discussions are going on of an extremely delicate nature it would be mad in the extreme prematurely to disclose them.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, as he must, that from the very beginning our anxiety has been not to hinder but 'o help the negotiations? Before we rise for this long Recess we are entitled to press him to tell us that there are negotiations proceeding between Her Majesty's Government and the Greek Government and between the Governor and Archbishop Makarios, and that these negotiations are continuing. We are entitled to ask him between whom these negotiations are now proceeding.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have said. There are discussions of various kinds going on but these may not be the only discussions. It might be that I would mislead the House if I gave an emphatic answer one way or the other now. It is our hope to use whatever machinery seems most suitable to try to bring an end to the present distressing deadlock.

Mr. Gaitskell: Could the right hon. Gentleman try to be a little more explicit? I appreciate his difficulty. All we are asking is a very simple question. Will he 'give us an assurance that there are talks, discussions, negotiations—I do not mind


which word is chosen—going on between, on the one hand, Her Majesty's Government and the Greek Government, and, on the other hand, Her Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government? Simultaneously, are there talks, or is there any possibility of talks, between the Governor and Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman this time has asked a different question: whether there is any possibility of talks between the Governor and the Archbishop. To that I can certainly give the answer that I very much hope there will be talks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said that I very much hope that there will be further talks in the future. I ask the House, in the interests of the common desire of all of us to arrive at a settlement, not to press me further. It is extremely difficult on matters of this kind to be absolutely certain that a chance observation may not do enormous mischief.

JORDAN (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Robens: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the disturbances in Jordan involving risk to British life and property, he will make a statement?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): I regret to say that over the last five days there have been disturbances in the main cities of Jordan. These disturbances followed the resignation of the Jordan Government headed by Said el Mufti. They appear to have been mainly among the large refugee population of the country, which, as the House knows, numbers about 800,000. It seems likely that they were deliberately incited by misrepresentation from outside the country of the policy of the Jordan Government, especially in connection with the Bagdad Pact.
Her Majesty's Government have never concealed from the Jordan Government their hope that the Jordan Government will accede to the Pact. At the suggestion of the Jordan Government, discussions have recently taken place in Amman between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the Jordan Government regarding the assistance which Her Majesty's Government could afford Jordan in such an event.
The Jordan authorities have given Her Majesty's Ambassador a full assurance that they are alive to their responsibilities for the protection of British and other foreign lives and property and are taking all measures to secure them. In spite of their efforts there have unfortunately been some incidents in which British lives have been threatened and British property damaged in the course of the disturbances.
On 18th December a crowd attacked a Royal Air Force ambulance and inflicted some minor injuries on the driver. On 19th December a British Army sergeant, D. Burns of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, was stabbed in the chest in Amman. He was rescued by soldiers of the Arab Legion, who took him immediately to the R.A.F. Hospital in Amman, whence he was flown to Habbaniya. I regret to say that his condition on 20th December was still described as dangerously ill. The same day a crowd broke the windows of the British Bank of the Middle East in Amman and did some minor damage to Her Majesty's Vice-Consulate at Nablus. In Jerusalem, so far as I am aware, no British subjects have been hurt and no British property damaged. There have been some other minor incidents involving British subjects on the West Bank, but I am not yet in a position to give details.

Mr. Robens: Does not this show the whole bankruptcy of the Middle East policy of the Government? Does it not show that the optimistic references made in the Middle East debate in this House only a few days ago were wide of the mark? Is it really the case that the Bagdad Pact and the arrangements by General Templer to get Jordan to accept the Bagdad Pact have gone so badly and the preparatory work was done so wrongly, that instead of having a country that will support the Bagdad Pact we shall have a situation in which we are trying to thrust the Bagdad Pact down the throats of the Jordan people—a similar situation to that which we have in Cyprus of a hostile country—instead of trying to develop some collective defence arrangements?

Lord John Hope: I must say I think it is regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman has made these deductions. [Interruption.] I am trying to answer the right


hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), if I may. Whenever any step is contemplated in the interests of peace and stability in the Middle East, or anywhere else, there are, of course, bad elements which will try to disrupt it. I should have thought the House of Commons was the last place where such elements ought to be encouraged.

Mr. Robens: Does not the Joint Under-Secretary feel that it is wild and extravagant language to accuse a responsible Member of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—certainly, in the words that he has used—of a desire to stir up subversive elements in the Middle East? It seems to be a disgrace to the position he occupies. May I further ask him whether it is not the case that the Government have bungled this matter badly? We have had General Templer out there for twelve days. Instead of having a nation whose population is in favour of the Bagdad Pact we have a Government whose population is strongly hostile to it. Does not that indicate how bankrupt the policy of this Government has been in the Middle East?

Lord John Hope: It is not at all the fact that the population of Jordan is hostile to the Bagdad Pact.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is it not possible that there is an interpretation of these events other than that of external disruptive elements? Is it not the case that in Asia there is a widely-held view that those nations should be independent of both blocs, and that the opposition to the Bagdad Pact is a reflection of that quite natural attitude on the part of the Asian nations?

Lord John Hope: No, Sir, I do not think that that is so at all. If I may revert to what the right hon. Gentleman said, I was not, of course, accusing him or anyone else in the House of wanting disruption, but I was suggesting that it is sometimes possible to make innuendos or suggestions which have that effect, whether one wants it or not. That is what the right hon. Gentleman was doing.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we take the strongest exception to criticism of the Government's Middle East policy—which is very genuine on this side—being interpreted as attempting to stir up trouble in the

Middle East? Does he really think that General Templer's visit, which appears only to have produced anti-British riots, was, in the circumstances, at all advisable?

Lord John Hope: I do not think that anything that has been done was inadvisable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—nor is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to assume that the whole policy there has collapsed. That is very far from being the case, and what is now happening in Jordan will pass over.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would it not have been very much wiser to have found out, before General Templer went out, what the reaction of the population would be to his visit?

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that I have to think of the interests of those hon. Members who have debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Lord John Hope.

UNITED KINGDOM AND IRAQ (SPECIAL AGREEMENT)

Lord John Hope: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House. I will make a statement on the Special Agreement of 4th April, 1955, between the United Kingdom and Iraq.
As the House will recall, the Memorandum attached to Note No. 2 which referred to the Special Agreement, provided that certain property in Iraq was to be handed over to the Government of Iraq and paid for at its in situ value. As a result of subsequent negotiations, the value of this property has been agreed at £2,755,000. It has also been agreed that the common interest of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Iraq in the defence of the area will best be served by an arrangement whereby Her Majesty's Government waive the payment of this sum and the Government of Iraq undertake in return to devote in the years 1956 and 1957 at least £2 million to the purchase in the United Kingdom of arms, equipment and defence stores and the remainder to expenses connected with the training of Iraqi forces in co-operation with our own. The Government of Iraq has also undertaken to make available in Iraq, free of charge, certain facilities for the British Armed Forces.
Details of this Agreement are contained in an Exchange of Notes between the Prime Minister of Iraq and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Bagdad, which were signed in Bagdad yesterday. The text will be available when I sit down.
By this Agreement we are in effect putting installations which we have built up over the years in Iraq for the defence of the Middle East area, at the free disposal of the Government of Iraq, as our friend and partner in the Bagdad Pact, to be used by them for the same common purpose. For their part the Government of Iraq are undertaking to provide free of charge certain essential facilities for our forces and to purchase arms in this country.
These measures are designed to strengthen the close connection between British forces and the forces of Iraq and thereby to consolidate the new defensive association of the Bagdad Pact. My right hon. Friend was greatly impressed during his recent visit to Bagdad by the need to use the new opportunities offered by the Pact to develop co-operation in the Middle East region which, as the House is aware, is now faced with a serious new threat to its security and independence. This new Agreement is an important contribution to this end.

Mr. Robens: May I ask whether, in the event of conflict in the Middle East between Arab States and Israel, the installations and arms now to be supplied under this Agreement are to be used against the Jews, or whether the arrangements made are such that the additional arms and the military installations will not be used for any purpose other than that of the development of the Bagdad Pact and its collective defence organisation?

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. The latter statement is correct. The arrangement is entirely within, and for the purposes of, the Bagdad Pact.

Mr. Robens: Is it the case that in part of the Agreement it is made quite clear that these arms must not be used for any other purpose?

Lord John Hope: It is the case that they are to be used for purposes in connection with the Agreement.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Gentleman is dodging the question, which is a very straightforward one. Under what part of the Agreement is it made absolutely clear that these arms will not be used for any purpose other than that of defence under the Bagdad Pact?

Lord John Hope: I should have thought that that followed. Perhaps this will allay any anxieties that are in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. This Agreement does not impinge in any way on, or alter in any way, our commitments under the Tripartite Declaration at all.

BILL PRESENTED

AGRICULTURE (SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE PROVISIONS)

Bill to provide for securing the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in agriculture and certain other occupations and the avoidance of accidents to children arising out of the use, in connection with agriculture, of vehicles, machinery or implements; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Heathcoat Amory; supported by Major Lloyd-George, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Iain Macleod, The Attorney-General, Mr. Nugent, and Mr. Niall Macpherson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn —[Mr. Heath.]

KENYA (POLICE ADMINISTRATION)

12.26 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having allowed me this opportunity to answer the unwarranted attacks which have been made on me by the Secretary of State for the Colonies as a result of my visit to Kenya.
During Question Time last week the right hon. Gentleman, hitting out wildly in reply to Questions which merited a careful and detailed answer, fell back on two unparliamentary devices in an effort to hide the fact that he had no answer to the points I raised. In the first place, he took a course of action which, I think, is unprecedented in this House. He quoted a remark which I was alleged to have made to the Attorney-General of Kenya during one of two lengthy private conversations which I had with him in Nairobi, when we discussed together the case of Kamau Kichina.
Since my return from Kenya I have scrupulously refrained from quoting, either in this House or in any of the articles I have written, what the Attorney-General said to me during those seven or eight hours, because I had a better concept than had the right hon. Gentleman of the behaviour expected of an hon. Member. The only reference I have made in my articles to the talks that I had with the Attorney-General appeared in the Daily Mirror—which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has read and no doubt has with him now. If he has not, I will refresh his memory. In that article I said:
For hours we went into the papers together, and he was as anxious as I was to see that justice was fully done.
It is quite intolerable that the right hon. Gentleman, without consulting me or laying before this House the full record of those conversations, should have extracted one alleged sentence and thrown it at me without any warning in substitution for a reasoned answer to a serious Question. How does the right hon. Gentleman know that what he quoted was a fair record of the conversation that took place? Is he now going to tell me that there was a tape recorder under the Attorney-General's table? If not, what

right had he to accept as the correct version of the conversation that given by only one of the parties to it? Is that the kind of behaviour which is befitting an hon. Member of this House?
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it proper to take one sentence out of its context unless he is prepared to lay before the House the full papers concerned? I challenge him to do that, because if he will lay before this House a full verbatim record of those two conversations, if he has such a record, I shall be fully vindicated in the Questions which I have already asked on the case of Kamau Kichina and the Questions which I shall continue to ask—because the Colonial Secretary's methods will not intimidate me from doing so. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman has no such verbatim report, I challenge him to admit it here and now, to apologise to me for his behaviour and to withdraw unreservedly the accusations he made.
In the meantime, failing that, my colleagues and I must draw the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman is unfit to act as an impartial judge of what is happening in Kenya and is unfit to answer in this House about its troubled affairs or to serve as the custodian of the rights of all the inhabitants of Kenya, which it is his duty to do in this House.
During our exchanges last week the Colonial Secretary justified his action of quoting this sentence out of context on the grounds that I had been guilty of publishing "monstrous slanders" against the people of Kenya in my articles in the Daily Mirror. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that those articles that I wrote were not privileged and that the slanders of which he complained were not made under the security of this House, but were made in a newspaper. If, therefore, there is any person who considers himself libelled by what I said, he has a course of action open to him to claim redress. But if the Colonial Secretary, instead of having this reaction to the facts that I tried to put before him, would have taken the trouble to check those facts, he would never have used that intolerable word "slander."
I want to know to what specific instances he is referring. I have my articles here. The right hon. Gentleman has read them. Will he give me one single instance of a libel in those articles?


Is he referring perhaps to the reference I made to the increase in venereal disease in the Nyeri district as a result of the separation of husbands and wives which has arisen from the emergency? If he is referring to that, I would point out that the District Commissioner of Nyeri was standing by my side when the sister of the mission hospital at Tumu Tumu made that statement to me. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to check in Kenya whether or not the facts and figures that I gave in my article were true.
Perhaps, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman was referring to a reference in another of my articles to what I discovered at Manyani detention camp. Has he consulted the commander of that camp, to ascertain whether I went there and whether the men whose names I gave were in the camp in the circumstances as stated in my article? I maintain that it is I who have been slandered in this House by the right hon. Gentleman quite unscrupulously, because I am afraid he reflects the attitude that one finds too much in Kenya today—the attitude of meeting any criticism, however serious and responsible, by hitting back in a blind and violent fashion.
I should like to quote one of the letters which I have received since we last discussed this matter in the House, and I hope that the Colonial Secretary will pay great attention to this. It is a letter from a clergyman in Yorkshire, and he writes:
May I be allowed to support you in your action in calling for an investigation into affairs in Kenya. I am deeply interested in the work of the missionary societies there and have been told repeatedly that things are not very satisfactory. I am grateful to you for calling attention to the situation and hope that your efforts will be rewarded.
I have just received a communication about the time which is available for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to this debate. I think that both he and I are in some difficulty.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Mr. Speaker, may I ask where we stand? I am sorry that the hon. Lady should have been interrupted. Could you indicate when this debate will be brought to an end?

Mr. Speaker: We have lost half an hour in starting, but one hon. Member who was allotted half an hour on the Adjournment has now withdrawn. On the

other hand, there will be a Royal commission at half-past three which will consume about a quarter of an hour. The net balance, therefore, is that we are a quarter of an hour down on the day. I ask hon. Members to do their best to recover that amount of time so that everyone will get an equal chance. This matter certainly cannot finish at 12.45, but as soon as it can be finished the more time there will be for other people.

Mrs. Castle: I will try to be brief, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure you appreciate that a number of important points are involved. I have been slandered seriously in this House and a point of principle of importance to all Members has been raised. Therefore, I am in a grave difficulty as a result of the reduction in the time, which was already very short for this purpose.
One of the points which I made in my articles on Kenya was to the effect that the trade union movement, which is officially recognised by the Kenya Government and which is affiliated to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, to which, also, the British unions are affiliated, has been shadowed and hounded by the secret police in Kenya. This is, no doubt, one of the things which the Colonial Secretary would call a monstrous slander. But since I sought to raise this matter on the Adjournment a serious new development has taken place which I think fully justifies everything I wrote.
When I was in Kenya, meeting these trade union leaders, meeting them openly, going to their offices and talking to them freely, it was said to me by more than one African, "You know what will happen when you get back. We shall pay for this." In the Manchester Guardian of 8th December, a few days after my return to this country, there appeared a report that the trade union offices of the Federation of Labour, in Nairobi, had been raided by the police, that documents were searched, files taken away, and no one has been able to find out the purpose and the result of that raid.
The Trades Union Congress has been in touch with the Colonial Office in an attempt to obtain further information, as has the General Secretary of the Kenya Federation of Labour, Mr. Tom Mboya, who is in this country studying trade union and social matters at Ruskin College. Nothing further has appeared in


the British Press. That is the difficulty about Kenya. The facts do not come to us and we are often unaware of what is going on.
I should like the Colonial Secretary to tell us whether it is a fact that the deputy of the General Secretary, Mr. Gaya, who is acting in his absence as liaison officer between the Kenya trade unions and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, has now been arrested. If so, what is the charge against him? I suggest to the Colonial Secretary that the developments which have taken place since I left Kenya are only too painfully in accord with what I feared might happen, that Africans who talked to me freely in an attempt to put their problems before this House would be penalised as soon as I left.
I went to Kenya for two reasons. I went, first, because Colonel Young, who was sent out to Kenya last year to reorganise the police, resigned before his contract was finished, because he disagreed with the attitude of the Kenya Government. I went, secondly, because the case of Kamau Kichina, which was reported in the British Press last August, proved that the abuses to which Colonel Young had objected had not been eliminated, were still possible and were still taking place.
At the beginning of this Session, in view of the alarming details of this case, and of the way in which they link up with the protest which Colonel Young has made, I asked the Colonial Secretary whether he would institute a high-level official inquiry from this country into that case. He refused, saying that he did not think an inquiry was necessary and that he did not think any police reforms were necessary. In view of the complacency which he showed—a complacency which was not shared by hon. Members on this side of the House—I felt that I must myself make independent inquiries.
As a result of those inquiries, I have discovered the real reason for which Colonel Young resigned. He resigned because he wanted to build up a police force independent of the Administration in the same way as the police force in this country is independent of the Administration. He had found, on the contrary, in Kenya, that the police regarded themselves as a department of

the Government, to such an extent that instead of considering themselves as the independent agents of the law, who should impartially and ruthlessly stamp out abuses, they considered themselves rather to be the agents of the local Administration, from whom they felt obliged to take instructions whether or not action should be taken when abuses occurred.
When I made this point in my Question to the Colonial Secretary last week, he threw up his hands in horror, as if I were producing a montrous new slander out of the hat, but surely it is common knowledge—and it has never been denied—that in the enforcement of law and order in Kenya the police are responsible to the provincial and district commissioners as representatives of the Government.
The Colonial Secretary has himself made this point in previous debates and it has been made in the Report of the Kenya Police Commission, sent out in 1953 to examine the structure and future of the Kenya Police. That Police Commission pointed this out, and surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to know it if he knows anything about Kenya at all. The Commission said:
We find that, in fact, there is little practical difference between the police and various Departments of Government and that the police officers are considered civil servants to whom special duties and functions are assigned. This situation is completely at variance with the conception of a police officer under the Common Law of England.
That was the system to which Colonel Young objected. He wanted to give the police in Kenya the same constitutional status as they have in England under the Common Law of England, and it was because he could not get that reform that he resigned.
We believe that this system has been responsible for a number of the abuses which have troubled the House during the last few months, and this brings me to the case of Kamau Kichina, which I raised at the beginning of the Session and which the Colonial Secretary dismissed as being of no great significance. Let me remind the House of the details of this case.
Kamau Kichina was an African labourer employed at a Home Guard post. Some money disappeared from this Home Guard post and he was suspected of having taken it, probably to contribute


it to Mau Mau funds. He was, therefore, taken to a nearby police station where two European police officers, Fuller and Waters, proceeded to question him. They held that man for five days without a warrant, without a trial and without officially having him charged, and during that period he was beaten, he was tortured, he suffered exposure at night and he was denied food until, eventually, he died.
The disturbing feature about this case is that on the day Kamau Kichina was detained, his arrest was reported to the senior district officer in the area, Mr. Richmond, whom the Colonial Secretary has himself admitted is a regular member of the Administrative Service; and Mr. Richmond sent one of his district officers, Mr. Bosch, to report on the case for him. Mr. Bosch was later accused of having abetted the maltreatment of Kamau Kichina and was found guilty.
That was serious enough, but more alarming still was that another junior district officer, Mr. Coppen, was involved. He visited the prisoner at the same time as Mr. Bosch and saw him lying down, clothed only in a blanket, saw him being beaten, and saw him being dragged up the hill with his hands manacled in front of him. He later admitted in court that when the criminal investigation department started its inquiries into the death of Kamau Kichina he made a statement to the police which was deliberately designed to mislead. Of this district officer, the magistrate said:
Another D.O. and magistrate admitted at the inquest that he gave false evidence to the police C.I.D. when inquiries were in progress into the death. Giving false information to a public officer is an offence under the penal code.
The Colonial Secretary told me on 26th October that this man's contract of service had been terminated. He has been allowed quietly to leave the Service and no other charge has been preferred against him.
More serious still is the fact that the senior district officer, who is a regular member of the Administrative Service, was well aware of the fact that Kamau Kichina was being held prisoner. He admitted in court that he saw the prisoner twice during those five days of maltreatment which eventually led to his death. He admitted in court that on the second day he hauled the prisoner, Kamau Kichina, before a baraza, or a village

meeting, and that he told the village that it was clear that Kamau Kichina had taken the money—although this man died protesting his innocence to the end—and he said in court, openly—and here I am quoting from the court record of his evidence:
I also told them I would take action against Oaruweru village unless the money was recovered.
He admitted having in this way incited the villagers against Kamau Kichina and admitted that he handed the prisoner to the village elders and told them to do what they could "to help" to get him to confess. He said he impounded 100 cattle and 72 goats belonging to the village as a communal fine, in other words he confiscated them.
Two days later, the day before Kamau Kichina died, he brought him before another village baraza. All this he has admitted on oath. One of the African tribal policemen, giving evidence in court, said of the condition of the prisoner the day before he died:
Kamau seemed to be very sick and he was even smelling. He smelt very badly, like putrefaction. He was incapable of either walking or even standing at the bar. Mr. Richmond was in charge of the baraza. When Kamau was brought in front of the baraza he could not walk and had to be supported by two men.
When I put these facts before the House last week the Colonial Secretary turned on me and said that he had no information whatever to support the statements which I was making. I suggest that it is fantastic for the Minister in charge of a Colony to make a remark like that when he had already told the House two months earlier that he was quite satisfied that no inquiry was necessary in this case.
Has the Colonial Secretary done what I have done? Had he turned up the court records of this case before he told us that an inquiry was not necessary? Has he talked it over in detail, as I have done, with the Attorney-General in Kenya? I will not disclose, even in my own defence in the House this morning, what the Attorney-General said to me, but if the Colonial Secretary had talked it over for several hours with the Attorney-General, as I have done, he would not be so complacent about it, or deny that there was no evidence to confirm the facts which I put before him the other day.
I challenge the Minister to tell the House that the Attorney-General of Kenya denies the facts as I have stated them. Of course he cannot deny them they are in the court records. May I ask what has happened to this senior district officer, Mr. Richmond, who went to far greater lengths than those that I have had time to recite, and who so incited the villagers against this wretched, helpless prisoner that the villagers tried to lynch Kamau Kichina, and he had to be dragged away in a Land Rover to save his life?
At the inquest, this district officer withheld important evidence, and later admitted that he had done so. Not only that, but this district officer so misled the doctor, who was the medical witness in the case, by telling him that he had seen Kamau Kichina the day before his death and that he was then "perfectly well," that the doctor came along later at the inquest and preliminary inquiry, and said that he had not made as thorough an investigation of the injuries as he would otherwise have done because of the misleading statement made.
I ask the Colonial Secretary, if he has the passionate desire that we have on this side of the House to see that this sort of thing should never happen again, why no action has been taken against the district officer whose professional conduct he rushed to defend last week? Why is it that on 24th October, two months after these events had been revealed at the trial, it was published in the Government Gazette—and I have seen it for myself—that this district officer had been transferred to South Nyanza, with the same rank and the same status? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I have not the time to continue this as I should like to have done.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Does the hon. Lady really tell us that the man who conducted this baraza is governing natives in our name today?

Mrs. Castle: All that I can tell my hon. and learned Friend is that I myself saw in Nairobi the Government Gazette of 24th October, in which it announced the appointment of Mr. Richmond to another district, South Nyanza, still as a Government district officer of the same rank. I am sure that the Colonial Secretary will not attempt to deny that,

because it has been published in the Government Gazette.
I suggest that all this cries out for an inquiry. There are a hundred and one questions which have never been probed by the Colonial Secretary as they ought to have been probed if he cared passionately for the name of British justice. Why was the charge of murder against these two police officers, Fuller and Waters, dropped? On 26th October the Colonial Secretary told me that it was because the medical evidence of the witness, Dr. Brown, was not strong enough. But the evidence was strong enough at the inquest to cause the magistrate to suspend the hearing, and to say that a case for a charge of murder had been made out. Why then was that evidence modified at the preliminary inquiry held seven days later?
Is there any doubt that the injuries which Kamau Kichina suffered during those five terrible days and the exposure to which he was subjected had at the very least accelerated his death? I am told by legal friends that if that were so, at the very least a charge of manslaughter ought to have been brought instead of a charge of causing grievous bodily harm, which led the magistrate to give a derisory sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. Why did the magistrate pass a sentence of 18 months when he had the discretionary power to send the men to prison for seven years, even for the crime of causing grievous bodily harm?
There are dozens of questions that need answering. I say quite advisedly that it is time that the Colonial Secretary showed less hostility when these points are brought to his attention, more anxiety that the African in Kenya should receive equality and justice before the law, and more willingness to consider once again the reforms for which Colonel Young was earnestly pressing.

12.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I, too, am sorry that this should be a short debate. I should have been interested to hear further observations from the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and other hon. Members, and to have had the opportunity of making a longer speech of my own, but circumstances do not enable that to happen. Other opportunities will, no doubt, arise in the new


year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I should welcome them very much indeed, because I am as anxious to search for the truth as hon. Members opposite and anxious to protect those people, whose spokesman I am in this House, against charges which are so often and almost always unmerited.
Before addressing myself to the substance of the hon. Lady's remarks, there is a personal explanation which I should like to make. I quoted in the House last week a remark which I said that the hon. Lady had made to a senior officer in Kenya, and which she rightly recognised, I think, as perhaps being a remark which might or might not have been addressed to the Attorney-General of Kenya, with whom she had very long conversations. I made this statement in the House because of the concern of the House expressed by, among others, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and later the following week by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the House was concerned that it might be thought that no hon. Member of Parliament in the future might be free to talk to officers of colonial Governments without the risk of what they said being quoted without their foreknowledge in this House.
I think that, on reflection, there is a good deal to be said for that anxiety. I made a mistake in what I did and I am sorry that I should have occasioned this anxiety. I am sorry for any embarrassment that it might bring to the Attorney-General of Kenya who, like all his distinguished counsellors, is only too glad that Members of Parliament and others should know about the work they are doing and help to get the whole picture into perspective. Members need have no anxiety on this score in the future, so far as I am concerned. While I recognise that I made a mistake in this matter, that does not mean that I can allow to go unanswered some of the very sweeping charges made by the hon. Lady.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough) rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I fear that if I give way to interruptions it will mean that we cannot carry on the debate in the terms which, I think, we all agreed.

Mr. Brockway: On the last occasion that this matter was raised, we asked for an apology from the right hon. Gentleman. As he has now agreed that he made a mistake, is not an apology due from him?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Member did express his regret. If so, that is all that can be asked. I must ask the House to remember the rights of other Members on the Adjournment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My recollection of the English language is that the word "sorry" can be held to contain an apology.
The hon. Lady said that it was about time that I, as Secretary of State, began to take seriously some of the charges she made, and she referred in particular to the most distressing case of Kamau Kichina. I wish that she would remind people in and out of this country, and through the newspapers, of my long statement on 26th October on this particular case, in which I said that the Governor and I had been greatly distressed by this case, and no attempt whatever was made to defend the seriousness of a disgraceful state of affairs in which two police inspectors—a chief inspector and a temporary district officer—were convicted of acting contrary to the elementary ideas of British justice. No one attempted to defend that action. No one, so far as I know, in Kenya had a good word to say for it.
The hon. Lady surely should have drawn attention to the fact that when the whole of a country, living as Kenya has done for years under such fearful stress, unites in condemning action of this kind, that is proof of the fundamental desire that the rule of law should prevail. It would have been not only generous to me, which does not matter, but, I think she will agree, generous to the people of Kenya if she had made it clear that everyone here, including not least the Secretary of State, and all the people of Kenya are united in loathing what has happened.
The hon. Lady referred to the district officer, Mr. Richmond, whose conduct is at the moment subject to inquiry under the colonial regulations. I will make a statement about that when the House reassembles if the inquiry is then over, as


I imagine it may well be. At the moment, the matter is sub judice and I think it would be unfair to make any comment about it. In reference to the medical records to which the hon. Lady referred, the Supreme Court records have been placed in the Library of the House, but not, so far, the records of the preliminary inquiry. I propose to allow the records of the preliminary inquiry, including the medical evidence, to be placed in the Library.

Mrs. Castle: Would the right hon. Gentleman also allow the evidence of the inquest, held seven days before the preliminary hearing, to be placed in the Library, because that is very relevant?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly do that so that all the relevant papers may be available and hon. Members can read them at their leisure before the House returns after the Recess. I will do that as soon as possible.
I am always glad to hear of visits to Kenya, or anywhere else, by impartial observers anxious to get at the truth, but I must confess that I cannot disguise from myself the frame of mind in which the hon. Lady stepped into the aeroplane when she was leaving. If the newspapers are correct, she said, "I might need protection from the white settlers." That did seem a clear indication that the object was to support conclusions at which she had already arrived. Thus, while I shall do my very best in the short time available to answer some of the things the hon. Lady has said, I have the feeling that she went out in a very prejudiced way and not as an impartial observer. That, I believe, is bound to rob a great deal of what she said of its value.
The hon. Lady accused me of having said that in the newspapers she has slandered the people of Kenya, and she asked me to draw attention to any particular passage in those articles which did so. I would ask the hon. Member to look again at the article of 7th December, in which she will see:
The motto of the security forces was ' shoot first and ask questions afterwards'.
That does appear to me to be a fairly sweeping charge to make against the security forces in Kenya at any stage of the emergency in view of the individual courage and heroism which has been

shown in the Kenya area. Why did she not quote at the same time what was said recently by Mr. Justice Law, in Kenya:
This is yet another example, and there have been several of late, of the high standard of discipline attained by the tribal police and Home Guards in the Central Province and of their reluctance to kill even obvious terrorists if there is a chance of capturing even at grave personal risk to themselves.

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think I shall have to deal with this question myself. There will be plenty of other opportunities for exchanging ideas later.
In the same newspaper article the hon. Lady drew attention to a visit she paid to Manyani, where she saw the father of a boy who had been killed and gave the impression that two officers had been sent to Manyani to prevent them giving evidence consequent on the death of the child. The Attorney-General, to whom the hon. Lady has paid tribute, satisfied himself and the Government that the confession of those two people was entirely unconnected with that case.
I do not know whether that formed part of the conversation the hon. Lady had with the Attorney-General, but I have not got a record of it. There certainly was no recording machine there at the time, but if reference was made to that incident I am quite certain the Attorney-General would have reassured the hon. Lady that there was no question whatever of those two incidents having any connection.

Mrs. Castle: May I say, in reply, that when I got back from Manyani, just before I returned to this country, I laid this case before the Attorney-General, as I did all the evidence of a disturbing nature I found? He said that he would look into it. May I also point out that four of the five men I interviewed told me that although they had been in the camp for two months they had not in any way been screened since being detained?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is another matter. The Attorney-General has certainly gone in great detail into the matter and satisfied himself and the Government that there is no connection whatever between the two cases.
In her article the hon. Lady actually twisted what the father said—his denial


that he knew anything about the death of his son—and made it into a charge that some fear must be operating in Kenya which prevented the father knowing the truth, but the Attorney-General is absolutely satisfied that the father gave honest evidence to the hon. Lady. There is no question of there being any connection whatever between the two incidents. The hon. Lady regarded the fact of the father not knowing of the death of his son as being so inherently improbable that he must have been acting in fear of his life.

Mrs. Castle: The father denied to me that European police officers had killed his son. He denied that to me in the detention camp when I saw him, although he was present at the inquest where the European officers confessed to killing the boy, saying he was trying to escape. I have an actual witness to that because my interpreter at the camp was the official prison department interpreter who was the only medium through which I was allowed to speak to the prisoners. Surely the Colonial Secretary must find something very strange in the evidence.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The original charge was that these men were detained because they might have something unwelcome to say in the course of the C.I.D. investigations. They have denied that and the Government and the Attorney-General are satisfied. In regard to the new suggestion made by the hon. Lady—as far as I know, this is the first I have heard of it—I shall certainly look into that point and let the House know about it.
The hon. Lady made another charge. She referred to the searching of the I.C.F.T.U. offices in Nairobi, and suggested that that had been done because the trade union officers there had been hospitable to her during her recent visit. The so-called raid on the Association headquarters was a routine measure of investigation into the disposal of certain stolen property. It had nothing political in it at all. I am in touch with the T.U.C. on this matter. On 17th December Mr. Gaya was arrested on a charge of receiving stolen property and was remanded by a magistrate until 12th January. Is the hon. Lady satisfied with that or is she still suspicious?

Mr. James Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as

I do and as well as all of us here that the work of the I.C.F.T.U. in all Colonial Territories is of immense importance and that it deserves to be encouraged everywhere. The T.U.C. takes a very serious view of this matter, as also does the I.C.F.T.U. Am I right in saying that the T.U.C. has made very strong representations to the Secretary of State? Do we gather that those representations will be carefully considered and steps taken to prevent this kind of thing, because where there are trade unions this creates a very bad impression?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Member has said about the work of trade unions in Kenya and elsewhere. This incident in Kenya had nothing to do with their work. We are in touch with the T.U.C. and will keep it informed and keep the House informed if hon. Members ask about the matter. We are anxious to strengthen and enhance a strong trade union movement. But one of the things which has caused anxiety has been the way in which Mau Mau had penetrated the trade union movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When I saw the T.U.C. some months ago I had to explain that 50 trade unionists had been detained in connection with Mau Mau activities during "Operation Anvil" and that only after careful and detailed examination by the special branch was it possible to release 17 out of those 50. That is why I am always anxious to help the work of genuine trade unionism. I could not possibly allow a different law to apply to trade unionists as such from that applied to other people.

Mrs. Castle: Would not the right hon. Gentleman admit that Mr. Gaya, the official representative of the I.C.F.T.U. in Nairobi, who has been arrested, has never been suspected or accused of Mau Mau activities?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly never said anything of the sort and I am only too glad to say that I believe that to be absolutely true. That makes it all the more important when I say that his investigation had nothing to do with political matters, but was concerned solely with a routine search for property which had been stolen. After the hearing on 12th January, we should be in a better position to form our own judgments on the matter.
The hon. Lady asked me a number of questions about the resignation of Colonel Young. We had much discussion about this last year. I made a long statement about it. I agreed the statement with Colonel Young and with the Government of Kenya, and in the interests of tranquillity and looking to the future rather than to the past, I do not propose to go over that ground again.
I should, however, like to say that a great deal of action has been taken, largely due to the improved security position in Kenya, to bring about happier relations and good co-ordination between all those in the Administration and in the police and security services who have to work together to bring the emergency to an end. The way in which this co-operation is taking place among men and women of all races is one of the happiest auguries for the future of Kenya.
Although the House is quite right to be jealous of its obligation to keep a watch on all that goes on throughout the whole Colonial Empire, I trust that none of us will fail to see these disasters like the Kamau Kichina case, when they happen, in perspective against a background of a rapidly improving position, which has been brought about in the main by the loyalty and self-sacrifice of the people of Kenya themselves.

Mrs. Castle: May I not have the right hon. Gentleman's vindication of what he said to this extent: that he does not deny that the district officer to whom I referred had been gazetted on 24th October for a position of the same rank in another district?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that he is serving in the lowest rank in which he is entitled to serve to start with. It has to be a paper transaction; as most hon. Members concerned with Administration know, when a man leaves one post it is not taken for granted that he will be dismissed. On paper, he is transferred, because he must be borne on the books of some part of the Administration. The case is now under inquiry under the

Colony regulations and it would be rather a misuse of the regulations in Parliament if we talked further about it when the inquiry is not yet complete.

1.12 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has raised a number of very important issues. The Secretary of State knows that we have all been disturbed about the terrible case of Kamau Kichina. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated today that all the papers will be laid in the Library. May I take it that that includes the evidence taken at all stages of the inquiry right to the very end?
One of the things which disturbs us very much is that in this case the charge was reduced from murder to one of causing grievous bodily harm. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from Questions which I and others have put to him, that has disturbed us. It continues to disturb us. That was done on the basis of medical evidence, and it is important that the medical evidence is made available with the other papers.
I intervene only to indicate that, in view of the seriousness of this issue, we propose to return to it when the House resumes in the New Year. We believe it is time that the House had a full opportunity of discussing these matters and the Secretary of State a full opportunity of dealing not only with the Kamau Kichina case, but with the whole position, which has caused anxiety and ought to be debated much more fully than can be done today.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I note that and I am glad of it, for the fullest possible discussion of all these things is desirable. As we know, the Kenya Government have never accepted or tolerated a rule of fear or counter-terror. They have always resisted demands for summary trials and have enforced the rule of law. They have nothing to fear from the fullest possible discussion. I will do my best to lay all the relevant papers in the House. Although I cannot give an undertaking that every single document will be there, I will do the best I can.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

1.14 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: In view of the lack of time, I shall cut out much more than half of what I intended to say, and I hope that hon. Members will not regard the shortness of my speech as diminishing in any way from the importance of the subject I wish to raise.
Six months ago, the Architectural Review published a special issue about the increasing defacement of our town and countryside by ill-planned, ill-designed, ill-conceived, and ill-executed building and suburban sprawl masquerading under the name of development. The book was by Ian Nairn; its title, "Outrage." It exploded like a rocket in the faces of Government Departments, local authorities, and owners and occupiers of private land. This House would itself be guilty of the charges of desecration which it brings if we were to scoff at its evidence or ignore its moral.
What was the argument of that book? Let its own introductory words speak for themselves:
If what is called development is allowed to multiply at the present rate, then by the end of the century Great Britain will consist of isolated oases of preserved monuments in a desert of wire, concrete roads, cosy plots and bungalows. There will be no distinction between town and country… The end of Southampton will look like the beginning of Carlisle: the parts in between will look like the end of Carlisle or the beginning of Southampton.
The whole book, and its many hundreds of illustrations, substantiate that opening attack. If hon. Members think it exaggerated, let them read the book and then go out into their constituencies and look around them with the new eyes which its perusal will have given them. Let them mentally strip a familiar street or favourite landscape of its accretions during the last ten or twenty years and then consider whether, without them, both would not be improved. That is not because these things are of themselves ugly; it is not because all modern methods of production, distribution and exchange are necessarily vile. It is because they are wrongly sited and badly planned.
The book must speak for itself, as I have no time to summarise it. Wherever

one goes, in town, in suburb or in countryside, one sees the grappling arms of concrete stretching out to embrace the fields without drawing in any of their freshness. One sees ugly lamp standards, badly designed housing estates, and the Service Departments, particularly the Air Ministry and the Army, allow their sprawling camps and abandoned airfields to desecrate what remains of the countryside. If this process continues, we shall be overwhelmed by what the Architectural Review called "Subtopia." We shall find that it will be too late to save what we have come to regard as the unchanging and unchangeable character of England.
I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, whom we all congratulate on his promotion, what view his Ministry takes of this outrage? What powers does he have and how does he use them? Does he use planning consent, which is the instrument of authority, to prevent desecration? At what point is a decision made which will affect the whole appearance of an old market street or a stretch of countryside? Is not the decision made by the borough or the county engineer, who, if he ever thinks of the scenic value at all, thinks of it last, after he has considered all the byelaws, the traffic and other regulations of his department? He is left with no time at all—perhaps no wish at all—to consider whether the thing should be built in that shape and in that place. Those who have had the power to prevent these things have not cared, and those who have cared have not had the power to prevent them.
It is for that reason that I and several of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite put down a Motion, which now stands upon the Order Paper, which I should like to be read in conjunction with this debate. In the Motion, we suggest that the Government should set up a council of civic design on the lines of the Council of Industrial Design, which could give advice to those public or private bodies who are not too proud to mistrust their own judgment.
I do not want it to be thought that I am suggesting that such a body should have powers of compulsion. I do not wish to set up a Ministry of Fine Arts, or to assume that any group of people can constitute themselves into arbiters of national elegance. The council, whose constitution I suggest, would simply


extend the work which could have been done by the Royal Fine Art Commission, a body so distinguished in its membership, so modest in its ambition, so shy of publicity, so misnamed, so starved of money, that it has no more hope of resisting the onrush of "Subtopia" than Canute had of resisting the onrush of the waves.
Let this council of civic design set up its headquarters in London, and maintain a permanent exhibition, to which all those interested in good planning and design can go for advice and illustration. There are some things, even in the changeable world of taste, which are wrong absolutely, and too many of them have found their way into our villages and towns, so that our eyes have become dulled by surrender to the second rate. This debate should have taken place ten years ago.
Now that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is about to leave that Ministry for another—

Mr. Ede: He has left it.

Mr. Nicolson: —let him leave on his desk for his successor the OFFICIAL REPORT of this short debate, having marked with red ink all the relevant passages attacking, as the Architectural Review has attacked, this outrage on our land. Let us not wait another decade before something constructive, or, as we put it in our Motion to which I have referred, something creative, is done to save the countryside and towns.

1.21 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) has placed us all under a debt to him by bringing this matter forward today. I am sorry that he should be so pessimistic about what has happened and what may happen in the future. I regret very much his attack on the county and borough engineers, who, very often, have to be reminded that they are the servants and not the masters of the local authorities.
For the local authorities themselves I would say that I do not agree that the housing estates which have been created since the last war have, by and large, deserved the criticisms which the hon.

Member made. If we compare what housing authorities have done since 1945 with what private enterprise, the nobility and gentry and industrialists, did in the last years of the eighteenth century and the early years of the nineteenth, I think one can certainly say that public enterprise is well vindicated by what it has done.
I was in part responsible for the administration of what I believe to be the most beautiful county in England—but there are many claims to that distinction, and if anybody else likes to claim it for his county I hope he will agree, no matter where he comes from, that my county of Surrey can be regarded as the second. As I say, I had some responsibility for its administration, so I know the difficulties which were created in the north-eastern part of Surrey before local government had powers to control development and eyesores. Those can be compared with what the London County Council did with its St. Helier estate between the wars. That was a London County Council of whose political complexion I found myself in violent dislike, but it set a standard which, I am glad to note, other local authorities in the county have followed in their post-war developments.
I admit there are many things now going on that one regrets, but I doubt whether what the hon. Member has suggested will be sufficient to effect an improvement. I have noticed in some recent cases that under the present Administration some things which local authorities would have prevented have, on appeal, been allowed by the Ministry. There have been cases in which the Minister of Housing and Local Government has over-ruled the local planning authority when it has desired to control development and to frustrate bad development. He has done so when the cases have been considered on appeal to him.
Everybody who has been concerned with administration in this matter, whether at the local or the national level, knows that one is always brought up against the hardship that proper development would mean for the owners of small pieces of land. One can quite easily ruin what is now a fine street, or has the makings of a fine street in it, by allowing in it one patch of shoddy development.


I hope that the local authorities will have from the Minister of Housing and Local Government rather more sympathy when they have to incur local odium by resisting what they regard as unsuitable and unsightly development, and when appeals are made to the Minister, who gives the final decision.
I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his promotion. In this matter he has gone to the right place, though, unfortunately, there is no offence in the criminal law when people uglify their surroundings. When I moved from the Ministry of Education to the Home Office I said that I was like a doctor turned undertaker, because I buried the mistakes of my previous occupation. The hon. Gentleman, I regret, will have no opportunity of doing that.
I hope that I speak for the whole House when I say that all the matters brought up by the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch give us concern. I am quite certain of this, that it is only by a rising standard of public opinion in support of local authorities and Ministers when they take a strong and reasonable course in these matters that any improvement can be ultimately effected. I distrust bodies like the Royal Fine Art Commission. It wanted to put four kiosks on Hampton Court Bridge, one of the most beautiful bridges that has been erected in this century. It was felt that the sight of some ugly building might be avoided if one looked one way at those kiosks. However, if one looked the other way one found that Hampton Court itself was obscured, and Hampton Court is far more beautiful, after all, than any kiosk that any fine art commission could possibly devise on the end of a bridge.
There are various bodies concerned with this matter of planning and development. There is the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings. It is quite right to preserve many an old building which gives us a sense of what the country looked like in a time of gracious living. There is the Historic Buildings Council, on which I have the honour to serve on the nomination of the Minister of Works. I hope that by my drawing attention to this it will not be found that I thus have an office of profit under the Crown, although there is an hon. Member on the other side of the House, the hon.

Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), who can be paired with me. There is the Georgian Group, and there are other bodies. I do not think they should be able to exercise any compulsion on local authorities or on Ministers. I am quite sure that they would be better advised to direct their energies towards educating public opinion rather than criticising local government officers and bodies.

Mr. Nicolson: The right hon. Gentleman really is misrepresenting me. Having cut out three-quarters of my speech, I yet had time to say that I was not proposing any powers of compulsion at all. The right hon. Gentleman must be familiar with the Council of Industrial Design. Let him take that as a model for my council, for things out-of-doors, whereas the Council deals only with things indoors.

Mr. Ede: I was supporting the hon. Member's plea and then he talks to me in that indignant way. I tremble to think what would happen to me if the hon. Member had delivered the other three-quarters of his speech. I try to support him, with moderate enthusiasm, and then he tries to suggest that I am opposing him.
I want to make it quite clear that I do not want to see either the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, with regard to development, or the Ministry of Transport, with regard to bridges, asking these bodies to step in to deal with these local authorities who generally employ quite competent people for their major designs. I sincerely hope that public opinion will be steadily built up so that local authorities and Government Departments will realise that they have a trust which they have to discharge when these developments take place.

1.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) for initiating this debate and for bringing to everybody's notice this very stimulating document entitled "Outrage." I must correct my hon. Friend in one particular —the document did not explode like a rocket in my own Ministry. Nevertheless,


it has stimulated a good deal of discussion. Its approach is intellectual on a difficult subject, and its main thrust is directed at neither town nor country but at the kind of twilight areas in between and, what the document depicts with great effect, misplaced amenities.
The "blurb" of the document refers to the question of priority of claims. I think that in this island of 50 million people and 50 million acres the task of settling the priorities between the conflicting claims upon these acres is not only one of my right hon. Friend's most fascinating functions, but also quite the hardest and heaviest which falls to him.
I want to meet my hon. Friend as far as I can. Perhaps I should first attempt to define responsibility. I will not attempt a summary of the Town and Country Planning Acts, the broad effect of which he knows. For the local application of the principles of these Acts we look, and not in vain, to local planning authorities, for whom all local authorities are, as it were, sub-agents. Powers may or may not be delegated by the planning authority to the local authorities.
These Acts are not comprehensive. There are a good many elements referred to in "Outrage" which give concern, but which are not wholly covered by the provisions of the Acts. For example, there must be a clash between the demands of defence and the interests of amenities. When that happens the Government try to satisfy themselves that the defence project is urgently needed, or cannot be met in some other way. The Post Office takes care over its plans for local post offices, and the planning authorities take a lively interest in the sites. As to the countryside, it is an open question whether telegraph poles enhance or distract from the appearance of lonely country roads. These are examples which are outside the terms of the planning Acts.
There is very little new development going forward on the railways at the moment, but such development needs the approval of the planning authorities. Whether some of the London stations would be improved by complete or partial removal is a matter of dispute. After all, a number of people are in support of St. Pancras Station. The closing of branch lines, which some people might regard

as the removal of an eyesore, does not seem to be welcomed by others, and people become sentimental about the chugging of trains among our hills and valleys. Works connected with the provision of electricity supplies are partly outside supervision of the Act. As far as possible, care is taken in the routing of overhead lines and the siting of power stations, but there are bound to be some difficulty cases.
There is the aftermath of war damage. These sites are gradually being cleared in the towns by rebuilding, but in the countryside there is unquestionably a great deal of untidiness and of now unwanted war works. My right hon. Friend is prepared to give financial help towards total or partial restoration where he is satisfied that the damage to amenities is so great that it is in the national interest to remove the cause. Planning authorities have certain powers to deal with these cases. There are other examples of matters which do not come within the framework of the planning Acts and within the purview of the planning authorities, to whom we look for the effective implementation of those Acts.
I share with the right hon. Member for South Shields the feeling that it is wrong to be too pessimistic and to suggest that nothing has been achieved. There are in "Outrage" passages which lead one to the darkest possible pessimism about the whole outlook for this country, but I do not think that that is quite right. The post-war decade compares very favourably with the inter-war years, for example, in the prevention of ribbon development and sporadic building, which undoubtedly the later Town Planning Acts have effected. The Green Belt has been more strictly regarded than some people are ready to believe, and my right hon. Friend has quite recently issued some very clear and fresh guidance to local authorities on the subject.
Again, there is the policy designed to check sprawl, which is one of the great enemies in this matter, by means of overspill schemes. I do not want to embark on that theme. I should be out of order if I did so. There are opportunities for discussing that policy under another Measure which is now before the House, but it is fair to say that the checking of sprawl is one of the major roads


towards what my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch seeks to achieve.
We hear much of what is permitted. Photographs of examples are reproduced in "Outrage," but nothing is heard of projects denied by planning authorities, often in the teeth of local protests frequently supported by hon. Members of this House. There are in particular the petrol stations. We are so often told that a petrol station is a means by which Mr. So-and-So earns his living and how outrageous it is to deny the erection of a petrol station which a county authority wishes to prevent being built.
My right hon. Friend is considering a council of civic design or something equivalent to what my hon. Friend has mentioned, and no doubt will have something to say about it in future. There is a responsibility upon a great many people besides my right hon. Friend and the planning authorities. "Outrage" itself recognises this. I quote again from the "blurb":
A quick, effective change of heart can only come about through pressure of public opinion…
I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. It is fatuous to pretend that the crusade can only lie with the local authorities.
In this respect the citizen has much greater power than he perhaps realises, first in agitating locally against outrages, which he can do either alone or in conjunction with the many voluntary societies which exist for doing that sort of thing and, secondly, simply in acting socially. In saying that, I am thinking particularly of the appalling litter in our towns and countryside, which suggests much scope for improvement by the individual.
I stress this because there must clearly be a limit—I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this—beyond which authority cannot go in controlling, forbidding and outlawing individual designs. It is usually said that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government does not too little but too much in the way of controlling and forbidding. It is not easy to hold a central course. There is no hon. Member who has not at one time had a constituent enraged by the decision of a planning authority which has denied him doing something that he wanted to do.

A few of us have experienced the complaints of third parties who seek to restrain someone else from development. I should have said that the first category was far more numerous than the second.
What I have now to say bears very much on the theme of "Outrage." To a degree which we have never previously experienced in this island, industry, particularly in the shape of factories, has become to a great many of our cities and towns a symbol of civic pride. That is not surprising in view of the contribution which we expect those factories to make to our national well-being and our livelihood. Nor is it a situation which ought to be really disturbing to the authors of "Outrage" because many of the new factories in their layout and design are models of modem are hitecture and express the spirit and the character of our times perhaps more effectively, though I do not wish to make invidious comparisons, than some of our civic architecture. It is in their siting and what they bring in their train that there is cause for anxiety and—I agree with my hon. Friend—scope for more imaginative thought.
I should like to stress the rather peculiar relations—I say "peculiar" in the best sense—which exist between Whitehall and the town hall. Everybody believes in local government autonomy until the local authority does something to which they object, and then they ask my right hon. Friend to quash it. Broadly speaking, we do not "direct." We can, of course, guide in such matters as these, but too much guidance defeats its own end, merely adding to the mass of paper which descends on the desks of local authority officials.
In such guidance, it is important that we should say not only what should not be done but what should be done. I hope that "Outrage" may produce a companion volume in the future which will show a rather more constructive approach to these problems, showing not only what is outrageous but also what is desirable. While I admire the volume, I think it paints the prospect in rather sombre colours, and that carries the danger that many may feel that the situation is now past praying for. After reading some of it, one might be forgiven for concluding that. I consider that that is very far from true. I believe there is


still very much which is good—some of it is post-war creation—and that it is far from being swamped by what is awful.
Our safeguard in this matter is vigilance, and that rôle should be regarded not as the prerogative of my right hon. Friend or the local authorities, but as the responsibility of all.

PIG MARKETING

1.44 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Perhaps I might begin by joining in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) upon his translation and elevation.
I am sure the House will agree that it is very difficult on this occasion to discuss comprehensively the subject which I am now raising, but the matter has become such an urgent one that I am equally sure the Parliamentary Secretary will welcome an opportunity of saying something about the present pig muddle. When his right hon. Friend revealed to the House that between June, 1954, and November this year no less than £76 million had been spent by way of deficiency payments on pigs whose total market value was only £167 million, he said, in reply to questioners, that
it had brought benefit both to producers and consumers—and also to taxpayers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 9.]
The right hon. Gentleman can seldom have made a statement less related to the facts.
Let us first take the consumers and the retail prices of bacon and pork. If we compare like with like and take reliable figures, such as those provided by the Grocer—in other words, figures comparable with those which I gave the House in March—we find that back rashers, the maximum price of which under a Labour Government was 3s. per lb., in March cost 3s. 10d. per lb., as I then told the House. Today back rashers are selling at 4s. 6d. per lb., and, as the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, that is notwithstanding the drastic reductions which have been made in the last few weeks. Let me now deal with gammon, which I quoted in March. Whereas it was selling at 3s. per lb. under a Labour Government and 4s. 4d. per lb. in March last, this week

it is selling at 4s. 10d. per lb. Only a few weeks ago it was selling at 5s. 6d. per lb.
The hon. Gentleman cannot say, as his predecessor used to argue, that at the expense of high prices there is greater consumption, because the consumption of bacon is falling. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that there is any recompense in pork prices, because pork chops, the maximum price of which under a Labour Government was 2s. 10d. per lb., are now selling at 4s. 4d. per lb., and, unlike bacon, the price of pork is still going up. It went up 2d. in the last few weeks.
Whatever pork prices one takes, the same truth emerges, that the retail price is going up. How the right hon. Gentleman can argue that in those circumstances the expenditure of £76 million of the taxpayers' money has brought any relief to consumers, I simply cannot understand. The right hon. Gentleman's Department affects and largely controls the retail prices of bacon because it is still responsible for the release of Danish and Polish bacon.
What do we find from examining the first-hand prices of Danish bacon? We find that, whereas in July, 1954, Danish bacon was selling first-hand at 296s. per cwt., between 7th April and 8th June it was selling at only 220s. per cwt. The hon. Gentleman knows what happened between April and June this year. There was a General Election. It was an absolute disgrace that heavy losses were incurred by the Ministry so that grocers could put up in their shops notices calling attention to the reduction in the retail price of bacon during the General Election.
What happened immediately after the Election? By November, the first-hand price of Danish bacon had risen to 328s. per cwt. In the few months after the Election, during which the Government have been consoling themselves with the result of the Election, the price of bacon released by the Ministry has gone up by more than 100s. per cwt. It is not surprising, in view of that, that retail prices went up. It is true that now the firsthand price has been reduced again to 296s., but it is equally true that the firsthand prices were reduced when we raised the matter in the House of Commons. We can take some credit for having reduced bacon prices in the last few weeks, but


I have no confidence in the right hon. Gentleman when he behaves like this. It is clear that Danish bacon prices are affected by political considerations.
Overall, retail prices have gone up. Although they have fallen in the last week or two, they will go up again in the New Year, and even now they are still substantially higher than they were in March, so that the housewife has no consolation for the loss of £76 million by Her Majesty's Government in supporting bacon prices. What benefit has this brought to the taxpayer? It is surely an extraordinary argument that the more one pays, the happier one feels.
What are the facts? In 1951–52 the subsidy on pigs was a little more than £44 million; in 1952–53 it was less, a little more than £38 million; but in 1953–54 it was more than £50 million and in 1954–55 it was £59 million; the estimate for this year is £76½ million. What consolation can the taxpayer get from that? What consolation can the taxpayer get from the fact that in three years the subsidy on pigs has increased by more than £34 million, when the subsidy today is almost twice what it was under a Labour Government when back rashers were selling at 3s. a lb., gammon at 3s. a lb. and pork chops at 2s. 10d.?
I have every sympathy with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) with his cri de coeur at Question Time. He cried out:
How is it possible to defend a policy involving this enormous increase in the agricultural support prices of pigs?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 809.]
It is an extraordinary theory that if in this dramatic way the burden on the taxpayer is increased, the taxpayer must, according to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, concede that there is some benefit for him.
What about the other people who are affected? Before considering producers, I should like to consider bacon curers. It has been said that bacon curers take everything out of the pig except the squeal. It is the bacon curers themselves who are now squealing. Of what are they complaining? They are complaining, first, of the present uneconomic small throughput. Comparing this year with last, it will be found that, in July, 75,000

fewer pigs went through the bacon factories; in August, 79,000 fewer; in September, 81,000 and in October 89,000 fewer.
The weekly output of the bacon factories for months has been 500 tons less than it was last year. Are the curers not justified in saying that as commercial organisations they are seriously prejudiced? They also say that this is the first time that this has happened since the end of the war and that they cannot now plan ahead, because of the uncertainty of supplies. They have certainly shown that they are in earnest, because they have been obliged to suspend the contribution they were making to the F.M.C. The hon. Gentleman cannot say, any more than he could about retail prices, "People must decide whether they want more pork or bacon," because the number of pigs going to pork has dramatically fallen in the last few months, and it has fallen in an aggravating degree.
The third group of people whom the right hon. Gentleman says should be obliged to him, because he is imposing upon the taxpayers a burden of £76 million, is the producers. The producers have never been as unhappy as they are today. It is only a short time ago that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor called upon them to produce 1 million more pigs, and then the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted fewer pigs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his unfortunate reference to pig production. What do we find? The September census shows that there are 750,000 fewer pigs than there were twelve months ago. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman being complacent about this.
I have some sympathy with the agricultural Press, which says that the position now is probably much worse than it was at the beginning of September. It was the right hon. Gentleman himself who, in the summer, made the estimate that pig production would fall by 10 per cent. His estimate, like his other estimates, is hopelessly wrong. Pig production now is rapidly falling and—I have called the attention of the House to this time after time—we have greater fluctuations in pig prices than we had pre-war.
Let the farmers speak for themselves. In November, at the time the right hon. Gentleman was so testy because we were


complaining of the pig muddle, the Farmer and Stock Breeder said:
Our bacon factories complain they are half empty; the number of pigs in England and Wales is down by over three-quarters of a million compared with 12 months ago; the promise for the future is shown by the heavy drop in the numbers of feeding stock and sucklers; and the Fatstock Marketing Corporation cuts its prices. Meantime, bacon prices soar, the Government unloads Danish bacon at a profit instead of at the expected loss.
It went on:
And the financial troubles which the F.M.C. statement admits, raise other, ugly questions. Overnight the country's meat supply could be in a state of chaos—out of joint, in more ways than one.
Let us take, for example, what the Farmer and Stock Breeder has been saying while the right hon. Gentleman has complacently answered Question after Question in the House. It describes this as the "grandfather of all pig crises"; it says there is a "prospect of a pig famine"; it refers to "pandemonium in the pig policy." It alleges "the bottom falls out" and "the storm has broken in earnest"; it speaks of the "calamitous ups and downs"; it says "the whole pig industry is at stake." It complains of the "mess we are now in"; it alleges that "the commercial pig breeder has lost faith"; and that "the industry now finds itself in a position where it is doubtful if even the most efficient producers will scrape through."
It calls our attention to the "transformation in the pig picture since decontrols" which it says is "frightening and mystifying"; it says "the deficiency payment scheme has proved wrong"; and that "new machinery must be devised." Those are not the words of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. Those are the words of a journal inclined to be favourable towards Her Majesty's Government, a journal which at any rate can claim to be expressing the feelings of the farming community.
However, to show that I am not partial in the choice I make, I will briefly refer also to the Farmers Weekly, which refers to a "crisis," and which has so little confidence in the right hon. Gentleman that it says:
Heaven save us from a catastrophe.

It also talks about a "mess." It says that
the pig marketing muddle has reached a new and more critical stage
and goes on:
It is a situation which cannot be left any longer in the vain hope that somehow it will work itself out.
It goes on to say:
The longer the present marketing muddle lasts the greater is the danger not merely to this or that section of the pig business but to the industry as a whole.
Apart from the producers' fears, the Government must regard as an alarming consequence the present difficulties of the Fatstock Marketing Corporation. I have mentioned the fact that the curers have been obliged to suspend their contributions. In a few months the F.M.C. has paid out more than £1½ million and its efforts have failed. It has depleted its equalisation fund—and that is producers' money. It has depleted its resources in its courageous endeavour to hold prices stable.
What does the F.M.C. say? It puts the blame fairly and squarely upon the Minister. It says, and I quote, for better accuracy:
The root of the trouble lies in official persistence with the wrong interpretation of the facts.
While all this has been happening, what has the right hon. Gentleman done? In November he complacently told us, when we called his attention to this disastrous decline in the pig population:
I cannot say that I think that the trend over the past nine months has been unsatisfactory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November. 1955; Vol. 546, c. 1630.]
That is the concern he showed. When we used the word "muddle," he said:
… there is no muddle: it is purely a commercial problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 1642.]
In December he went the furthest the right hon. Gentleman has gone so far to recognise that there is a real crisis affecting the industry. He said:
I am not satisfied that the best way of marketing pigs has yet been found and applied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December. 1955; Vol. 547, c. 810.]
A few days ago he was gracious enough to say that his officers were ready to discuss with the National Farmers' Union the future form of the guarantees within, of course, the amount laid down by the February Review.
I should have thought that if anything should disturb the right hon. Gentleman it would be this disastrous muddle affecting pigs and pig production. I know that the right hon. Gentleman may feel immune. He has been through crisis after crisis, and muddle after muddle, but I should have thought that the present pig muddle is due to unprecedented, monumental folly.
It is no use saying that he has referred the general question to, and that he is awaiting the advice of, the Reorganisation Commission. It would be quite different if we had not had all the inquiries of the 'thirties. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to await such advice. The advice has all been tendered in the past. The only difference is that now we have a far worse muddle than ever before in the industry. What we want is action.
Everybody knows how moderate is my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and I will conclude by quoting his words. He said that the Government's policy has not brought stability, that it is nothing else than "just plain nonsense." The sooner action was taken the better, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will take the opportunity to say something that will allay the present fears which are disturbing everyone connected with the industry.

2.4 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: We have just listened to an astonishing speech in which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was trying to make the maximum of capital out of certain things which have happened which are no longer the responsibility of the Government. The hon. Member really asked that the Government should again take responsibilities which are characteristic of Socialist Governments.

Mr. Willey: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hear me when I began my speech. All my remarks related to the £76 million of taxpayers' money that has gone into this business.

Major Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that, as long as we have a system of guarantees of market prices under the Agriculture Act, there is a responsibility on the House and the Government to decide each year what measure of support should be given. That I appreciate and certainly I do not wish to see it altered,

but the hon. Member's main intention really was to show that the operation of that system, the actual distribution of the support agreed in the Price Review, is faulty.
The important point which he overlooked is that now the guarantee is operated by an organisation over which the Government have no control at all. The Price Review now operates in such a way in respect of meat that the Minister, in his capacity of Minister of Food, as well as Minister of Agriculture, no longer has the control which the hon. Member, when he was Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Food, must have so enjoyed in controlling the industry. Personally, I should regard it as a most retrograde step if, as a result of what the hon. Gentleman said today, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary were to say that he now proposes to advise the Minister of Agriculture to go back into the actual operation of the affairs of the Fatstock Marketing Corporation and the auctions.
I remember very well when the market was just becoming free again that certain steps were taken by the National Farmers' Union to attempt to set up a complete Fatstock Marketing Board. The decision was given that that was perhaps premature, and eventually the National Farmers' Union made the suggestion about the Fatstock Marketing Corporation. There is no doubt that had not that Corporation been in existence there would have been a far bigger upheaval in the disposal of fatstock of all kinds than happened in the event.
Although we fully appreciate, as I think the Corporation itself appreciates, that there were growing pains, we realise that to change suddenly from a system which had been in operation for fourteen years without having a few difficulties and adjustments would have been expecting the impossible. Nevertheless, the Corporation has done a very good job. I know that there was a stage during which perhaps it did divert to the auctions certain animals which need not have been sent there and as a result it was, to some extent, using the guarantees for purposes which we had not primarily intended when we approved them. However, I think that that has stopped now.
What the hon. Member has not given the Government nearly enough credit for


is the fact that they have set up a committee to look into the whole of the pig marketing operations. That Committee has not yet rendered its final report. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was the last person to have expected the gentlemen in Whitehall, to whom I am sure he is deeply grateful for the assistance they gave him when he was in office, to know more about the operation of the pig marketing organisation than those directly concerned in it—the producers as well as those concerned in other ways.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North has in any way made a valid point. He has suggested that the committee which is now arguing on the matter, with expert advice, should be completely overruled by the Government stepping in right over its head while it is still considering the whole problem and before it has rendered its report, to bring back again the strait-jacket of State control.
The hon. Member has been arguing the same case as he and his hon. Friends argued during the General Election. They want a return of rationing and control and all those horrible things which the electorate felt, after the Election, they had got rid of for ever. I hope that my hon. Friend will strongly resist what has been said by the hon. Gentleman.

2.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I regret that we are rather pressed for time and that other hon. Members cannot take part in the debate. I am sure they will understand that other debates are to follow and that we must try to finish this one as near as we can to the appointed time. I appreciate the strong interests of hon. Members on both sides and I know that there are others who would have liked to take part.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: With only three Government supporters present.

Mr. Nugent: And only four, I see, on the other side of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But they are four representatives of agricultural constituencies.

Mr. Nugent: No doubt this is the time of day when one is interested in eating pork and bacon rather than talking about it. Be that as it may, I understand the great interest which hon. Members have in this subject, and I am sorry that there is not more time in which we could debate it.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Wiley) for this opportunity to reply on this subject. It is a very complex matter, but there are good answers to the weighty accusations he made against me and I will see whether I can now reply to them. First, let me deal with the main charges. The hon. Gentleman brought three main charges against us: first, that the consumer's interest has been neglected; secondly, that the taxpayer's interest has been neglected; and, thirdly, that the producer's interest has been neglected.
I will deal first with the consumer's interest. Today, the retail price of back rashers, which I think is the best indication of the demand price, is 4s. per lb.—

Mr. Sidney Dye: No.

Mr. Nugent: That is the price in the multiple stores. The price has been going down in recent days and hon. Members may not have the latest figure.

Mr. Dye: I have been in Leadenhall this morning.

Mr. Nugent: In Leadenhall one does not pay the retail price, one pays the wholesale price.
That figure of 4s. per lb. compares with the price of 4s. 4d. for back rashers immediately before the control came off. I will admit straight away to the hon. Gentleman that the price of bacon this autumn has been high; indeed, in November it reached the high point of 5s. 2d. per 1b. But, as I say, it has come down to 4s.—I am speaking throughout of the price of back rashers as the best indication.
Certainly, in the earlier part of the year it was a good deal lower. For the first five months the price was more or less continuously under 4s., and in April the price of back rashers fell to the low point of 3s. per 1b. But that was a level at which home production and imports would have been uneconomic and it was


clear that, in due course, the demand would strengthen again and the price would recover. I say again that the movement of bacon prices and the release of imported supplies has been actuated throughout by the need to meet consumer demand with the combined supply of imported and home production.

Mr. Wiley: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman; I realise that he has a lot to say. But will he deal with the figures which I have given to him? We have had this out before. I quoted to him figures from sources available to the hon. Gentleman, and the same sources from which I quoted in March, so that the figures which I have given are related. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge them, he should either challenge the sources or deal with those figures. It does not help the debate to produce other figures to prove that, perhaps, in some obscure quarter of the East End, it is possible to buy cheaper bacon.

Mr. Nugent: No, I can assure the hon. Gentleman straight away that the figure I have given is the reliable retail price today. The figures I ha re given are perfectly accurate.
On this question of 'he price of bacon, and the accusations made that my right hon. Friend and I were influenced by political considerations, I give the assurance, which has been given before by my right hon. Friend, that we have never been influenced in the release of imported bacon by anything other than consumer interest and in order to get a fair supply coming forward. In the spring months of this year demand was very weak indeed and insufficient to take up the current supplies. The result was that the market fell.
I will concede to the hon. Member that the price of fresh pork today is higher than it was under control, but not so very much higher. I make the point that, on the other hand, the quality of the pork today makes it quite a different food. In the last year our producers have studied the pork market and today they are producing joints of pork of the kind which the housewife wants. There is nothing like so much being cut to waste, the quality is really good, and the article which the housewife is getting is of far better value.
On the question of the volume of consumption, which to the consumer is of equal importance with the price, in the first 12 months since decontrol the volume of consumption of all meat, that is, beef, mutton, lamb, pork and bacon, was 115 lb. per head—that is within 3 lb. of the pre-war consumption. In the last year, under decontrol, we were 17 per cent. higher than in the last year under control and no less than nearly 60 per cent. higher than during the last year of Socialist Government in 1951. Those are factors which I am sure should be taken into account when considering whether or not the consumer has benefited.
I wish to make the point, which is of great weight indeed, that the consumer today has a choice. No one will contend that, with the ending of meat rationing, and free choice for the consumer, the housewife in particular has not enjoyed a great benefit which was welcomed in every household in the country. So much for the consumer. I say roundly that the charge of the hon. Member regarding consumer interest has failed. Today, the consumer has a far more plentiful supply with a free choice, and retail prices are not substantially higher. In fact, prices of bacon are lower than at the time of control, and pork prices are only a little higher with the quality very much higher.
Turning to the taxpayer interest, the figure for the cost of subsidy in 1953–54 was £50½3 million. In 1954–55, which was the last year of partial control and partial freedom—about three months of control and nine months freedom—the figure was £59 million. For the current year, 1955–56, the estimate is £78 million, but the actual figure for the current year, for the first eight months, is £35½8 million. These figures can be judged only if set against the actual volume of clean pigs coming on to the market. For 1953–54 we have an overall through-put of 8½5 million and in 1954–55, 10½8 million. In others words, there is an increase of nearly 25 per cent. In the present year, 1955–56, the estimate is 9½4 million. In other words, it is still 10 per cent. higher than in the last full year of control, when the cost was £50½3 million.
The picture we get from that is that the taxpayer, for the year 1954–55, when there was more freedom than control, has paid


about 18 per cent. more on the subsidies and has about 25 per cent. more volume. It is too early yet to say exactly how it will work out in the current year, but there is 10 per cent. more volume to consider against, whatever is the final cost to the Exchequer. But, from the way it is running, it is evident that the figure will be significantly less than £76 million—

Mr. Dye: Mr. Dye rose—

Mr. Nugent: I am sorry, but I cannot give way.

Mr. Dye: Why not give the number of pigs for October 1955, and 1954?

Mr. Nugent: In this context I should pay tribute to our producers who, during the current year, have produced a better quality pig which more nearly meets the requirements of the consumer. The result has been that they have been making a better market price at a lower cost to the Exchequer. They have reduced their dependence on public funds. I think that those figures fully bear out my contention that the taxpayer is getting good value.
The charge has been made that there has been an excessive drop in producers' returns, especially in the past few weeks. I accept straight away that there have been anxieties among producers in the last week or so about pork prices, and perhaps even more so over the past few weeks about bacon prices. If I address my remarks to the question of bacon prices, I think I can make my point most clear. I will use the quotations of the F.M.C., because it handles 90 per cent. of the bacon pigs.
The F.M.C's price for the week beginning 14th November was 52s. 6d. a score dead-weight for Grade A bacon weight pigs. The following week it was 52s.; the next week, 51s.; at the beginning of December it was 46s. 2d. minimum; and for the week beginning 12th December it was 43s. 7d. minimum. That shows a drop of about 9s. a score. I concede straight away that if that were the end of the story it would be a very serious matter for producers, but there are the deadweight payments to come. In fact, the dead-weight payment for the week beginning 5th December—when the F.M.C. quoted a price of 46s. 2d.—is 7s. 2d. a score, which would enable the Corporation to pay over 53s. a score.
For the following week, when its quotation was 43s. 7d., the dead-weight payment, which has not yet been announced, is estimated to be between 10s. and 15s. a score, which would enable F.M.C. and similar trading organisations to pay between 53s. and 57s. dead-weight per score if they wish to.

Mr. Willey: And this, of course, affects the subsidy.

Mr. Nugent: It does not disturb our estimates. We have made adequate and reasonable provision in our subsidies, and these are payments to which producers are entitled by reason of the guarantees we have provided. When markets fluctuate we step in with the guarantees.
In the light of these figures, it would seem that some people have been a little hasty in jumping to conclusions about what had really happened to the market. They had made their reckoning without taking into account the full effect of Government guarantees, which are there especially to deal with such a situation as this, and which will do so. I cannot say exactly what the F.M.C. or any other trading organisation will pay. The F.M.C. has to consider its equalisation fund, and the question of building it up again. But those are the dead-weight payments which they will receive, and those are the sort of final returns they can make to the producer if they think it right. Similar payments will apply in the case of pork pigs in the markets. There the individual guaranteed payments will bring producers' returns up. That disposes of the main charge of unreasonable fluctuations in the bacon pig market.
There is one other allegation, which the hon. Member did not make but which has been in the minds of many, namely, that there has been an altogether unreasonable release of imports of bacon which has caused the bacon market to collapse. In fact, the total supplies of bacon on the market in the past three months—October, November and December—have been slightly less than they were last year and the year before. Once again, we are influenced only by the need to meet the consumer demand with a combination of home supplies and imported. I have the relevant figures here if hon. Members wish to have them. It is quite clear that this is not a case of imports upsetting the


market. In fact, if the market had been supplied with anything less it would clearly have been unfair to consumers.
I should like to say a few words about the way in which these guarantees work, because I acknowledge at once that they are extremely complex. At the Annual Price Review every year we guarantee a standard price for all clean pigs. For the current year it is 51s. 3d. per score dead-weight. If the realisation price for all clean pigs sold—that is, pork and bacon pigs—is less, on average, than this price, we pay a deficiency payment which makes up the average of all prices obtained to the guaranteed price level of 51s. 3d. This deficiency payment is paid upon a monthly basis, calculated upon the results of the previous twelve months. It is also linked with the feeding stuffs formula, so that as the feeding stuffs price goes up or down the standard price of 51s. 3d. in effect goes up or down with it.
Then there is the other feature, the individual price guarantee. The purpose of this is to ensure the producer against unreasonable or unfair market fluctuations. A guaranteed price is provided for every clean animal sold in the auction markets, so that if the realisation price for the animal is less than the individual price guarantee we make up the difference. There is then a further refinement, called the market addition. Sometimes, for weeks or months at a time, the realisation price in the markets may be less than the individual price guarantee.
This would have the result of the producer being insulated from market influences and, in order to make the market bite, so to speak, and ensure that good producers get more for their pigs than bad producers, we pay a market addition designed to bring the average market price above the individual price guarantee. That prevents a flat price being paid to all, and ensures that there is a reasonable differential for quality.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Will the Minister say how the price in the last three months has compared with the corresponding price 12 months ago?

Mr. Nugent: It would be better if I completed this very complex description first. It is of considerable interest not only here but outside the House. Both these payments are taken into account in

calculating the collective deficiency payment. The individual price guarantee and the market addition are calculated only in the auction markets. They are transferred to the bacon pig and deadweight sales by means of what is called a dead-weight payment, which is calculated by reference to the average of all individual price guarantee and market addition payments in the auction markets, per score, and transferred direct to each pig sold, either dead-weight or in the bacon markets.
That sum is paid either to the individual producer or, as a lump sum, to the Fatstock Marketing Corporation and similar trading agencies, who then pay it to the producers either in whole or in part, as they think best. I have given the Corporation's published weekly quotations which will have taken into account not only the price it receives from the bacon curers, but also what it expects to receive by way of these dead-weight and other guarantee payments.
I think I have been able to throw some light upon this rather complex subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members have not been able to absorb all the complexities straight away, I hope that if they are interested they will study what I have said in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Issue a White Paper on it.

Mr. Nugent: There is one other matter, namely, the question of the variation of returns, of which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North accused us. In fact, taking the guaranteed standard price of 51s, 3d. for the current year, the variations have averaged about 10 per cent. on either side. That is not an unreasonable variation; in fact, it is a little less than pre-war. I have had the relevant figures looked up and can say that in the years 1934 and 1935 the average variation was about 12 per cent. on either side of the middle price, as compared with about 10 per cent. now. Once again, this charge was not well founded.
The system of guarantees that we have devised is not intended to return a flat price to producers but to moderate the variations. A certain amount of fluctuation is inevitable, and, indeed, is proper in this market. Here we have a market for pigs, where a little more than half of the pigs go for pork and manufacture and a little less for bacon. Both these


demands fluctuate, sometimes in opposite directions. Sometimes the housewife wishes to buy bacon and would like some extra, or she decides that she does not want to buy pork and would prefer beef or lamb. At other times she wants to buy pork and does not want to buy bacon. Perhaps she wants to buy both it all depends upon the season and her taste at the time. Inevitably, there is bound to be fluctuation in demand, and some fluctuation in supply as well.
The job of the producer is not to produce a pig to please the hon. Member for Sunderland, North or to please me, but to satisfy the housewife and to get the pork or bacon on to her table when she wants it and at the quality she wants. The man who succeeds in getting the right quality pork on the housewife's table at the right time should get more than the man who fails to do so. It is, therefore, right and proper that producer prices should bear some relationship to the fluctuations of supply and demand. The object of our guarantees has been to remove excessive fluctuations, but not what we think are reasonable fluctuations, so that the man who succeeds in meeting the demand will get the additional reward.
No one would maintain that the system is perfect. As my right hon. Friend has said, we are glad to receive suggestions about how to make it work better. We hope that the consideration which is being given to the marketing system by the Reorganisation Commission and the Report that is to follow will help us in this context. In the meantime we have invited the N.F.U. to consult with us about improvements which might be made to the guarantee structure.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: To the basic structure?

Mr. Nugent: Yes. We are not discussing price levels but the structure of the guarantee system in order to see whether there is any way by which we can improve it.
I make the point advisedly that when the charges made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North against me and against the Government are examined in the light of the facts I have given the House, they fall to the ground. The hon. Gentleman is simply left with his basic conviction or prejudice that he prefers State trading to a free market. We know that he dislikes

the free market, which inevitably fluctuates. Our system of guarantees protects the producer against excessive fluctuations. Our system of a return to a free market ensures the consumer and the housewife that they can have their choice. The hon. Member knows that if he went back to his system of State trading he could not give choice to the consumer.

Mr. Willey: I have made no such suggestion. I realise that there are matters to be discussed following this, but I would willingly discuss my proposals on another occasion with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nugent: We have discussed them on previous occasions, and no doubt we shall do so again. I have stated the hon. Gentleman's view. He and his hon. Friends put them on record, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has already said, during the General Election. I say advisedly, as I have said before, that a system of the kind preferred by the hon. Member cannot give choice to the housewife and must lead back to allocation and rationing. The present system is serving well to meet the needs and the interests of producers, consumers and taxpayers.

Mr. Dye: How many fewer pigs went to the market and to the bacon factories in October as compared with October last year? Is not the figure 240,000?

Mr. Nugent: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that 240,000 fewer went to market in October this year? It is not possible to judge these things without taking a period of several months. October, which the hon. Gentleman has chosen, was the peak month of 1954, following the summer months. The actual figure, from 10th October to 6th November, is 235,000 per week, compared with 180,000 per week this year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understood from the Order Paper that an hour was to be allocated to this discussion. It seems that for some reason the only topic that has been touched on has been the subject of pigs.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): We are behind the time-table even now.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (STAFF)

2.35 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: According to the news this morning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) is to be congratulated on the fact that he is to turn his great abilities towards the preservation of the future of our Air Force. This will, therefore, be the last occasion on which he will deal with the subject of atomic energy, so I hope that he will listen to one or two observations I wish to make on the subject of the staff of the Atomic Energy Authority.
It is clear that we have long been suffering in this country from a very serious shortage of technicians and scientists, and particularly of engineers. I think all would agree that it is important that in the sphere of atomic energy we should hold our position in the world. Many prophecies have been made about the future of the atomic energy programme in this country, but it is impossible to realise it unless we recruit the ablest people to do the job. Now is the occasion for a review of the progress in the recruiting of suitable technicians and scientists for carrying out that programme.
The shortage of skilled engineers is the thing to which I wish particularly to draw attention. No doubt my right hon. Friend will remember the first Annual Report of the Atomic Energy Authority. In two places in that Report the Authority makes the point that it has difficulty about the payment of salaries. It says, in paragraph 6, that it is to a certain extent lacking in freedom of manoeuvre, compared with industry, in the matter of salaries. The fact that it makes the point twice is of some significance.
The payment of salaries is bound up with the White Paper on the future organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority, issued about three years ago, and with the Waverley Report on the subject. No clear undertaking was given in the matter. So far as I know, it was generally understood that something in the nature of Civil Service salaries should be paid to the staff who were transferred from the Ministry of Supply to the Atomic Energy Authority.
What is the position now? Why does the Atomic Energy Authority make this

point so much? Does it find there is difficulty in getting the right men in competition with industry because its hands are tied in the payment of salaries? Is the real reason that it cannot pay its technical employees salaries which are widely divergent from those in the Civil Service? According to the Report, this difficulty seems to apply to all non-industrial grades.
The Report also makes perfectly clear that the net increase in the number of technical personnel is disappointing, particularly on the engineering side. No one, I think, will complain about the salaries paid to the top management grades, but if it is true that in other non-industrial grades the Authority has not the same freedom as industry, will my right hon. Friend see what can be done about it? Surely it is time to introduce greater flexibility in the payment of staff, because the whole future of the programme depends upon getting the right people.
Now, when we are beginning to leave the research stage and enter the industrial stage of the atomic energy programme, it is most important that the system should be revised if, as the Authority says in its Report, it is able only to keep pace with wastage. The Authority is not tied by Parliament at all, but in the White Paper it is laid down that it should not pay anything greatly in excess of Civil Service rates.
That leads me to the position of the staff as a whole in relation to the transfer of employees from the Civil Service to the Authority. It will be remembered that when the Authority was set up there was established a period of two years during which those employed under the original Ministry of Supply arrangements should be allowed to say whether or not they wished to transfer to the Authority. They must now choose to enter the service of the Authority by 1st February, 1956, and from what I have heard a number have rejected offers made to them by the Authority. Can my right hon. Friend say how many have so refused? In particular, can he split the figures into executive and technical categories? Does he view the refusals as a matter of alarm, or has it been possible for the Authority to replace those who wish to remain in the Civil Service? If many were to reject service in the Atomic Energy Authority


good salaries would be all-important in getting replacements.
Whatever my right hon. Friend's answer is to that question, the long-term problem still remains. Staff has to be recruited and then trained, and I now want to deal with the training of the Authority's employees once recruited. This is a matter of the highest importance at the present time and, quite apart from the difficulty of recruitment, facilities for training should be extended very considerably. Can my right hon. Friend say what extension has been made to the training system which existed under the Ministry of Supply and what facilities there now are? I know there are some facilities, but I want to know whether they are to be extended so as to enable junior members of the staff to go to technical colleges and universities.
During the debate on scientific and technical manpower on 21st July last, I particularly asked that new technical colleges and institutions should be built in the neighbourhood of atomic energy establishments—not specifically for employees of the Authority, of course, but at least to help them. I instanced the remoteness of Dounreay from any technical institutions. I should also like to know what technological courses are now available to junior employees. An apprentice scheme has been set up for both craft and student apprentices. Does the authority intend to extend that scheme, and can the apprentices get further education, and in particular to get degrees?
I think it is perfectly clear that the present piecemeal manner in which opportunities for technical education are being afforded will eventually show the need for some kind of central institution for nuclear physics or nuclear technology, on the lines, perhaps—although it is not the perfect analogy—of the Brookhaven Institute, in the United States of America. The programme of training would, of course, be governed by the Authority itself. If this idea were accepted, details would have to be worked out. If it were done, I think that industry would have to be brought in, and perhaps contribute to the costs. The idea of a national institute for nuclear physics may be well worth consideration, and is a subject about which the House might like to hear at a later stage.
My next point is one to which I referred in an Adjournment debate in January this year. It has been raised by the staff associations within the Atomic Energy Authority, as my right hon. Friend may think very natural. In the weapons group there are a number of people employed solely on the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Their fear, which should be allayed, is that if any change in international policy led to a relaxation of tension they might find themselves out of work. The difficulty is that the Atomic Energy Authority is a statutory body, it is separated from the Civil Service, and there is no alternative Department to which those people could go in such circumstances. An assurance as to their future employment would be useful.
I should like the Minister to say what he thinks the future pattern of the staff structure of the Authority is to be. Can he make any comment on the type of staff required? I think that he will agree that the Government should be thinking ahead about this, particularly now that Calder Hall has been started and the building of other power stations of that type will soon begin. We have to think of our world position. We depend on the skill of our scientists and technicians—and engineers in particular—and foresight exercised now will certainly help us in the years to come.

2.50 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): I am sure we are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for raising these very interesting points. It adds to the very natural good will which any Minister feels when privileged to speak on the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment. I will try to answer the points which my horn Friend raised.
My hon. Friend first referred to the shortage of technical staff. As he is very well aware, there is a national shortage of professional engineers, particularly of design engineers, which afflicts not only the Atomic Energy Authority but the whole of our industry. As my hon. Friend said, this point was mentioned twice in the Report of the Authority. Since that Report, certain further measures have been taken to improve the pay and conditions, and it is hoped that this will enable the Authority to have rather greater flexibility and to compete


successfully with outside industry. We are not altogether unhopeful that things will improve considerably.
My hon. Friend's next point related to how well or ill the transfer of staff from the Civil Service to the Authority was going, and he asked for certain figures. As he knows, the staff were given until 1st February of next year to decide what they were going to do. The position is that 78·5 per cent. of the civil servants now with the Authority have accepted the offers; 10·5 per cent. have rejected them and 11 per cent. have not yet notified the Authority of what they want to do.
I think that is reasonably satisfactory, particularly as the percentage varies between the different classes, as my hon. Friend assumed. The rejection rate is higher among the non-specialist staff—for example, executive and clerical officers—than among the professional and scientific classes. The figures are: 8 per cent. of the professional and scientific staff have decided not to avail themselves of the offers, whereas 15 per cent. of the clerical and executive staff have rejected the offers.
Of course, quite a number of the people in the executive and clerical grades who have rejected the offers are people of considerable seniority who, not altogether unnaturally, do not want to start in a new organisation rather late in life. The total numbers are not very great and do not constitute a very serious problem. Most of the wastage caused by these rejections has been made good without much difficulty.
My hon. Friend's next point related to the question of training. It is obviously true that training is absolutely vital in order to overcome the Authority's longterm staff problems. There are, in fact, comprehensive schemes for craft and student apprenticeships, and in appropriate cases the Authority provides practical training for students before they enter university and, indeed, after they graduate from universities.
Very special consideration has been given to what are known as "sandwich" courses. These combine theoretical training in a university or technical college with practical training in the Authority's workshops and laboratories. There are also opportunities for the staff to compete for bursaries which will take them to university. The Authority also

runs a large number of advanced courses in nuclear technology within its own organisation. There is, for example, the reactor school at Harwell. The whole object of these arrangements is to extend and improve on the basic system—and a very good basic system it was—which the Authority inherited from the Ministry of Supply, and to ensure that the Authority gets enough staff with the required qualifications and knowledge.
Reference was made by my hon. Friend to the difficulties of getting outside instruction at some of the remote establishments. This constitutes a great problem, particularly at such places as Dounreay and Calder Hall. But especially sympathetic consideration has been given to those difficulties, and we are well aware of them.
My hon. Friend mentioned a larger project, to which he has given some thought, for some centralised organisation for training people particularly in nuclear subjects. I have noted with interest what he has said. I cannot say anything more today on that subject, except that I am grateful to him for his suggestion.
Then there is the question of the very natural fear of redundancy in the weapons group of the Authority. The weapons group constitute a balanced scientific and technical staff, and they are housed in buildings which have equipment and facilities. It seems to me, therefore, extremely improbable that there is any real danger of widespread redundancy, whatever might happen about the future of atomic weapons. It is worth remembering that there are many fields in which the Authority at present is quite unable to devote as much time, brain power and skill as it would like to the developments which lie ahead; clearly, if there were a release of skilled personnel from the weapons group, the Authority would be only too happy to use them on other tasks.
My hon. Friend concluded by saying a word about the future pattern of the Authority. I do not think one can lay down anything definite about this. The essential point is that the Authority is a pioneering organisation, and its job is to keep abreast of advances in scientific thought and of new discoveries. What is certain is that all types of skill, both


scientific and administrative, will be needed, and that the Authority will continue to need to recruit good men, as this is an expanding field. But I think it would be unwise for me to try to predict exactly what the pattern of that expansion will be.
I therefore end by saying that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these points; I have tried to answer them as well as I can, and I wish him a very merry Christmas.

2.59 p.m.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Before we leave this interesting subject and before the Minister leaves the Chamber, I should like to offer one or two observations in support of the general argument which was deployed by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). I speak with some personal feeling about this matter, because I am a professional engineer myself and I am head of a light engineering firm in the Midlands. I also represent one of the Birmingham constituencies.
I want to put to the House what I believe to be a general feeling which is widely prevalent in the Midlands at the moment. It stems partly from the fact that there are not enough young men in this country coming through the universities and technical colleges with the qualifications which engineers and engineering firms require. I know there is a desperate shortage. I do not myself know how this can easily be solved, but I want particularly to put these points in connection with the Atomic Authority.
With this very limited supply of these highly qualified young men, we have a feeling that the Atomic Energy Authority does two rather unfortunate things to our firms in the Midlands. In the first place, it tends to attract a greater number of these young men to the Authority and away from us than we think is fair, and secondly, flowing directly from the first, in the process and through the law of supply and demand the price one has to pay in order to attract to private enterprise and engineering in the Midlands the kind of men we need has now very greatly increased.
We are all aware that if wages and salaries continue to rise it will be

extremely difficult to keep prices down. Very often, I think too glibly, we are apt to assume and say that this is the result of organised labour clamouring for higher wages on the shop floor. Let us not forget that there has been at least as big—and in my opinion a very much bigger—an increase in the last four or five years in the salaries of the higher echelons of management, particularly of engineering firms, than there has been in wages on the shop floor. This is due to the law of supply and demand. The demand is heavily increasing and the supply is nothing like keeping pace with it.
I should like to give the House a simple illustration. It is my personal job in my firm to try to attract, recruit and select the kind of young qualified engineer whom we so badly need in my firm. In the process of trying to carry out that duty I have repeatedly made applications to the appointments boards of most of the universities. I have written to the boards at both Cambridge and Oxford—and I put Cambridge first, because there are a few engineers in the House who come from there, and I think they are the best. Both the Oxford and Cambridge boards have told me that at present there are ten jobs trying to catch each engineer who qualifies at Oxford or Cambridge today. In the last five years not a single name from either Oxford or Cambridge has been presented to me even to consider. Very much the same applies to the other universities in the country.
It is desperately hard for private enterprise and engineering firms of the size which is traditional in the Midlands to obtain the kind of qualified technical people we so badly need. I know, of course, that it is in the national interest to keep well ahead in nuclear development. I am well aware, as Professor Bronowski has pointed out elsewhere, that perhaps the most important export of this country in the next decade or two will arise through the manufacture, sale and installation of atomic reactors. Understandably, therefore, a great proportion of our technical and skilled engineers ought to go into this sphere, but let us beware: it may well be that within a decade Britain will be the greatest exporter of atomic reactors and will fail to manufacture a single up-to-date machine tool and will fail to get any markets at all for her bicycles or pots and pans.
This is precisely what is happening, particularly in the machine tool companies, at the present day. In these industries we are falling desperately behind in the competition for world markets, because we cannot deliver in time. The Germans, in particular, the prices being more or less equal today, can get what orders the machine tool industry needs, precisely because they can produce and deliver quickly. Most of the machine tool companies in this country about which I know could do the same if only they could get a few more well-trained, qualified administrative draughtsmen to take the higher posts. These are so scarce that they simply cannot be found.
In light engineering we are watching the few engineers being turned out—far too few—being tempted away by the glamour of atomic energy, and we are desperately afraid that in the process we may find that the exports and the economy of the country is liable to become lopsided. I speak for many Birmingham and other Midland firms. We think this is a critical question. I do not suggest that anyone, least of all myself, knows exactly how to solve the problem, but the Government ought to be fully aware of it, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman has listened carefully to what I have said about it.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY, EUXTON (TENANTS)

3.5 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: The question which I wish to raise this afternoon is in the nature of a domestic problem. It concerns the Ministry of Supply, Chorley Rural District Council, Chorley Borough Council to a small extent, and 20 tenants of the Ministry of Supply.
In the Royal Ordnance Factory area at Euxton the Ministry have a number of service tenancies. When an employee comes into the works he sometimes receives with his employment a house, and when he leaves that employment, either to obtain another job or for other reasons, he is expected to give up the tenancy of the house.
Over the past few years the Ministry has been fairly lenient. It has allowed many tenants to remain in the houses and in a case where the husband has died it has allowed the family to continue as tenants in the house. The position has now been reached in which the Ministry has given notice to 20 tenants in order to obtain possession of their houses, so that workers in the factory can have service tenancies.
The difficulty which now arises is that Charley Rural District Council is responsible for rehousing the displaced tenants, because the Euxton area is within the area of the Chorley Rural District Council. Chorley Borough is affected only to the extent of two of the present tenants, and as that council has a rule that a tenant must be resident within the borough for five years before he can obtain a house, even those two tenants are ruled out because they are at present resident in the rural district.
The position is difficult because the housing situation in the Chorley area is very difficult. A large number of tenants are waiting for houses, and they are all people who have been on the list for three, four and five years. The rural district council is in the impossible position of finding houses for 20 tenants who are under threat of being turned out in March. It just cannot do so.
Therefore, I want to put one or two points to the Minister to see whether some compromise can be reached. In July of


this year, the officials of the R.O.F. approached the Chorley Rural District Council officials with a proposition that they should build 10 houses for these displaced tenants, that in the 1956 programme they should build a further 25 houses for their workers in the factory, and in the 1957 programme they should build a further 25, making a total of 60. The rural district council was quite willing to fall in with that proposition, provided that the Ministry would meet them on the rate subsidies, but since October that appears to have fallen through. That was due to the Ministry not being able to meet the financial position of the district council and also to the change in the housing policy of the Government.
The position is that 20 tenants are to be displaced and no houses are ready for them. That is most unfortunate. The rural district council cannot meet the situation at all When the Minister sent me his letter of 7th December—for which I thank him—I had already been acquainted by some of the tenants who had received notices with the impossible position in which they found themselves. Over the years they had been trying to obtain other accommodation in the area, but they had always been up against this difficulty.
The rural district council could not take a family out of a house and transfer it into a new house, or a house it had to let, because the family was not overcrowded or in difficult circumstances. They were families living in full-sized family houses. Although it had these applications, the council had of necessity to put first in its list of tenants people living in overcrowded circumstances or other difficult circumstances. The result is that now it has no houses in which to put these tenants and the tenants cannot find homes.
I ask the Minister, first, whether he will suspend these notices and try to come to some arrangement with the rural district council for the further provision of houses in which to put these tenants. I think that he will find that the rural district council is quite willing to talk on it. Secondly, if it is necessary for him to take action and to take the matter to court and obtain ejection orders, there is in the area a large hostel, the Woodlands Hostel, which is now empty and

which has been vacant for 18 months or two years. I ask him to try to find out from the Ministry of Labour whether it is possible to take that hostel over temporarily in order to accommodate these tenants so that they would have somewhere to go and the families would not have to be divided.
This matter arises from actions of the Ministry. I recognise that the difficulty has been caused by the leniency of the Ministry. If, as the tenancies became vacant—as men left their employment—the Ministry had compelled the families to find other accommodation in accordance with their service tenancy, the local authority could have found houses for one family at a time. It is easy to absorb one family over a period, but to absorb 20 families at once is impossible.
Hard though it may seem on the individual family, I suggest that when these people leave their employment the Ministry should see that at the first opportunity the family is found accommodation within the area of the Chorley Rural District. It would also be better for the rural district council periodically to build a small number of houses to accommodate these displaced tenants than, as at the moment, to try to find occupation for a large number.
There is another point in regard to the employment of people at the R.O.F. factory. I urge upon the Minister that whenever possible the people employed should be local people. There are many local people who could undertake many of the jobs that are not technical, or skilled, such as policing, caretaking, and so on. If people in the area could take over these jobs, they would not require service tenancies. They already have houses in the area and this difficulty would not then arise. When they undertook work at the R.O.F. factory and went into these houses, a number of people gave up existing tenancies of their own. Now they are asked to leave and they simply cannot obtain tenancies in other houses locally. This position causes great hardship.
My next point is a criticism of the Department. When some of the people have been in these houses for so many years, why give them notice just before Christmas? It is not a happy situation for families, less than a month before Christmas, to be faced with being told


that they must find another house. The whole of the festive season is disturbed for them and although they are not expected to leave until March, nevertheless this feeling is hanging over them all the time. It would have been far better to have waited until the New Year, even though it would not have made such a happy New Year present.
I recognise the tremendous difficulty that faces the Ministry, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary recognises also the difficulty facing both the tenants and the rural district. I hope he will try to come to some arrangement with the rural district council so that it can build and provide houses for the tenants who are to be displaced in its area.

3.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), not only for having given me some indication of the matters he was going to raise today, but also for the frank and fair way in which he has shown his appreciation of the difficulties which are all too obvious to the Department in this complicated matter of the housing of our employees and former employees. While he has criticised the Department and made some suggestions, they have been extremely fair criticisms and suggestions, which I shall certainly consider most closely.
Before I reply to the hon. Member in detail, let me say a few words about the housing policy pursued by the Ministry of Supply, because it is in the context of our general policy that the issues at Chorley must be viewed. The Department owns or controls just over 6,000 houses in different parts of the United Kingdom. Those houses provide accommodation for two classes of Ministry of Supply employees.
First, there are those such as constabulary and firemen who must live close to the factory or other establishment if they are to carry out their duties efficiently and properly. Secondly, there are those for whom the provision of accommodation is essential, if the Department is to secure and retain their services at the establishments in question. Many of those establishments are situated in out-of-the-way parts of the country, and we have had to build substantial numbers of houses if we were to hope to attract and retain the

workpeople and staff necessary for the manning of those establishments.
The houses owned by the Ministry of Supply are allocated on account of the employment of the occupiers themselves, and in the normal way tenancies are ended by a week's or a month's notice. Legally—and I must stress the legal position—we are entitled to recover possession of our houses when the tenants leave our employment. The present policy, however, is that the Department seeks to regain possession of a house from a former employee only when the House is needed for a key worker who would otherwise be lost to the factory or establishment, or to house an existing employee living elsewhere in conditions of real hardship. In practice, therefore, we have exercised our rights sparingly, and in only nine cases since the war has it been necessary to serve notice to quit in order to regain possession for one of our own employees, and in only four cases have these notices been followed by court proceedings. I am speaking of instances in which the former employee had continued to live in the premises. I am not here considering cases where it has been necessary to obtain the removal of an employee who was unsatisfactory either at his work or in his conduct. I should also mention that I am not here including the military and police personnel of the Department, who are required under the conditions of their service to give up their quarters when they resign or retire.
Of our total of 6,000 houses, about a quarter are at present occupied by those who no longer work at a Ministry of Supply establishment. The Department tries always to follow a generous and fair policy towards the occupiers, its former employees. There is a long history of this matter, but following the war, when defence production was reduced, many former employees were permitted to stay on, because it was felt that in this way the Department could make a contribution to overcoming the housing shortage at that time. By the time rearmament started in 1951, however, the Department found that nearly half the houses built during the war to cater for Royal Ordnance Factories had been lost to the Department in this way. The hon. Member can see, therefore, that the Department has been faced with a very sizeable problem.
With the expansion of the factories arising from the rearmament programme, many more houses were required for workers who had to be brought in from all parts of the country. The Department, nevertheless, was successful in satisfying that need without resort to notice to quit or legal proceedings, without hardship to former employees and without need to carry out new building. This has been achieved partly by the cooperation of our tenants in seeking and finding other houses, but, in the main, credit is due to the local authorities who, in many parts of the country, have given us most valuable and co-operative help. We are indeed grateful to the local authorities, and we hope that they may continue to be a help to the Department in future.
After those few general remarks about the Ministry's housing policy, I should like to turn to the position at Chorley and deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member. At Chorley there are two sites, one at the R.O.F. itself and the other at Leyland. On the R.O.F. site there are 105 tenancies for police and essential service occupiers, such as firemen who have to live on the site. There are 11 tenants in these houses who no longer work for the R.O.F. and these have all been warned recently to find other accommodation. They have been told that if they cannot give us vacant possession within three months we shall have to consider further action.
The hon. Member said that it was unfortunate that these warnings should have been sent out on 30th November, before Christmas. I should make it quite plain that these are only letters of warning and not notices to quit. It is only the first stage in the proceedings. If we had waited until the New Year the hon. Member might have come along and said that it was not fair to issue these warning letters just before Easter or, later, just before Whitsun or, later still, just before the summer holidays. It is always inconvenient for the recipient to receive a warning notice of this sort, but I think that 30th November was sufficiently in advance of Christmas. Bearing in mind the lenient and humane policy which the Department has always followed, I think that it was quite in order for us to warn the tenants on that day.
The hon. Member also referred to the possibility of our suspending these notices. I should stress once again that these are not legal notices to quit. They are mere warnings that in the course of three months we shall expect the tenants to have found alternative accommodation and that if they have not been able to do so at the end of that period we shall have to think again. The notice to quit itself is, in any case, only one stage in the comparatively long proceedings of obtaining an eviction. Therefore, I do not think that the Christmas spirit of these tenants need be unduly dampened by receipt of these warning letters, particularly since, if they had so wished, they could have quite well consulted the housing manager of the site concerned and learned from him the purpose of the warning order.
I should like to say here and now that even if we have to go through the procedure of a notice to quit, followed by the obtaining of an eviction order, we still allow the tenant further time, after an eviction order has been obtained, if we are satisfied that he has made genuine efforts to obtain accommodation elsewhere or if we know that in a few weeks' time the local authority or some other body will be able to provide him with a house.
One must say here, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that a local authority can scarcely rehouse individuals who are already satisfactorily housed. The local authority very often requires a court order to have been secured before it will consider the rehousing of the individual or family concerned. Therefore, the very humanity of our policy leads us into difficulties. We are reluctant to take court proceedings, but at the same time we know that very often, without those court proceedings the local authority will not be armed with the necessary power inside its own council to give a deserving family the accommodation which it needs.
That is why I should like to stress again that the co-operation with local authorities has been particularly valuable, and we hope it may continue. We have been able to explain our policy to local authorities, and, in particular, to the local authorities with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, and they have been able to make their plans in advance to a certain extent.
I must refer also to the other estate with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, the Leyland bungalow estate, where there are fifty tenancies. Nine of the tenants no longer work for us; they left our employment at various dates between December, 1943, and March, 1951. The families concerned are quite small. Two of the tenants are living alone, in two cases the family consists of a man and wife only, and the other families have one or two children but not young ones. There is no question of our attempting to evict families with a large proportion or young children. In this case, the families were visited—

ROYAL ASSENT

3.33 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went:—and having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Finance (No. 2) Act, 1955.
2. Aliens' Employment Act, 1955.
3. Friendly Societies Act, 1955.
4. Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955.
5. Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Act, 1955.
6. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1955.
7. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1955.
8. Runcorn-Widnes Bridge Act, 1955.
9. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1955.
10. British Transport Commission Act, 1955.
11. Hillingdon Estate Act, 1955.
and to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Diocesan Education Committees Measure, 1955.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY, EUXTON (TENANTS)

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I had just referred to the Leyland bungalow estate and to the nine tenants who no longer work for us. These families were visited or written to last summer and asked whether their names were on the local authority list. They have recently been sent a warning letter similar to that sent to the families in the R.O.F. site houses. That is the position today. We are in touch with the local authority, and we shall review the situation at the end of the warning period to see what shall be the next step.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Department does not give a tenant notice as soon as he ceases to be employed by us, thus enabling him, possibly, to secure earlier and more favourable treatment from the local authority. The reason is that we have pursued a policy of leniency, which I have earlier described to him. We feel that it would be unfortunate were we to hand out a formal notice as soon as employment with us ceased. That would indeed cause alarm and despondency far greater than that occasioned by receiving notice nearly four months before Christmas or a warning letter a month before Christmas. So we prefer to rely on co-operation with the local authority rather than go through the legal formalities right from the beginning.
I should make it quite clear, however, that the rent agreement makes it plain to every incoming tenant that his tenancy may be terminated by the giving up of his employment with the Department. A tenant should be in no doubt, therefore, about his position, but for the reasons I have given I think it would be unduly harsh to serve notice automatically on a tenant as soon as he leaves us, unless the accommodation is immediately required for another employee. We should not wish to burden the local authority with additions to its housing list when we might perhaps have some of our own houses vacant. We act only when we need these houses for our own employees.
The hon. Member mentioned the possibility of recruiting local unskilled labour


for our vacancies, thus avoiding the need to bring from far away people who would require these houses. I assure him that we do our best to recruit locally in the first place. It suits us far better if we can do so and avoid the problem of having to find housing accommodation. But such is the state of full employment in the country today that it is not always possible to recruit locally the particular grades we require. The hon. Gentleman may call them unskilled, but every man has some skill or expertise, and we need men capable of carrying out the job, whether they be night watchmen, police or firemen. It is true that they could be trained, but initially they need some qualities or characteristics, and such men are not to be found unemployed today.
We must therefore be prepared to bring them from further afield in order to fill our vacancies, but I will look particularly at that point and make certain that everything possible has been done, and if I can add anything useful to what I have said, I will get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member referred to the problem facing the local authority. As I expect he knows, last July we asked the Chorley Rural District Council if it would build 10 houses for tenants who were to be displaced, and a further 25, all as part of its 1956 building programme—and we also asked if it would be possible for the council to put up 25 houses in 1957. That is part of our policy of co-operation. We try to give authorities advance notice of our likely needs, so as to help them in their own planning. Unfortunately, so far the council has said that it is not prepared to do this unless we help to subsidise these houses. I am sorry to say that that is something which we, as a Government Department, cannot do.

Mr. Kenyon: Is not a Government Department doing it for the Leyland tank people at the present moment?

Mr. Erroll: That is, in fact, the case, but it is an isolated one, and we should not like to extend this practice.
Before concluding, I want to refer to the suggestion of the hon. Member about

the possibility of using the Woodlands Hostel to rehouse tenants temporarily until the council can find them accommodation. At first sight this is an attractive suggestion, but I find that it is not possible to take advantage of it. First, I must point out that the responsibiliy for providing emergency accommodation for homeless families rests upon the county authority; but we naturally try to avoid any of our former employees becoming homeless, especially as we still hope to count upon the full co-operation which we have had in the past from the local authorities responsible for housing.
Woodlands Hostel itself has been empty for some time, and it would therefore require to be refurnished in any case. Although it has been empty, however, we expect that another Department will be taking over the premises before long, and it would therefore not be possible to consider the use of this building for temporary accommodation purposes. I should mention, however, that we have in the area a large industrial hostel called Highways—which the hon. Gentleman doubtless knows—and I am going to make inquiries to see whether that hostel could be used if that should prove necessary. From what I have said, I hope that the House will realise that the Department's housing policy is generous and humane.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Hear, hear.

Mr. Erroll: I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Member for Dartford, because he and I have been in correspondence—

Mr. Dodds: I am now the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford.

Mr. Erroll: I apologise to the hon. Member, who will doubtless be travelling down the Thames with his nostrils wide open.
As I said, I believe that our policy is generous and humane. Former employees are permitted to stay on as long as we can spare the accommodation, and we take steps to recover the houses only when they are urgently needed for key workers, who would otherwise be lost, or to overcome real hardship to our existing employees.

LODGE MOOR HOSPITAL (AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT)

3.55 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I want to raise certain matters arising out of the disastrous air crash at Lodge Moor Hospital, Sheffield. My first point is that I am not going to give any lever to people who oppose American air forces being in this country. I welcome American air forces in this country, and, so far as this crash is concerned, I have no criticism to make at all of the American air forces.
The second point is really the reason why I requested this Adjournment debate. When I heard of the crash on Lodge Moor Hospital I came down to London as quickly as possible, but I was too late to put a Private Notice Question to the Prime Minister. I thought that only the Prime Minister or the Defence Minister was of the right political stature to answer Questions in respect of this disaster. I was too late for that, so I submitted a Question to the Prime Minister on the Tuesday, but it was rejected by the Table. The revised Question was put on the Order Paper for the Thursday. That Question was addressed to the Prime Minister. I was informed at the last minute that the Question had been referred to the Under-Secretary of State for Air. When I looked at the Order Paper I saw that it was Question No. 84, and that there was no possibility, no probable shadow of possibility, of getting in any supplementary question which I wanted to ask in respect of this disaster.
I resent that very much. I resent it for the people of Sheffield and for all those who are concerned about what happens in air crashes of this description. I couple with it the name of the Defence Minister, because the Prime Minister avoids answering the Question and, secondly, the Defence Minister avoids this Adjournment debate. While I have nothing at all against the Under-Secretary of State for Air, I say that this matter is of such importance as to warrant a reply at the highest political level. It should not be left—I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for the use of the term—to an under-strapper. The importance of the subject has been studiously avoided. I tell the Prime

Minister, through the Minister he has appointed to reply to me, that he is no longer a glamour boy but a responsible Member and Leader of the Government and, as such, should answer important Questions that only he or the Defence Minister can answer.
Now to deal with the case itself. I will not go into all the details. Suffice it to say that a jet fighter crashed on Lodge Moore Hospital and that one person was killed and several people were injured. What worried me was that rescue operations were hampered by the fact that although this aeroplane was not being used for target practice or for operations needing live ammunition, it had live ammunition aboard. When the crash took place, rescue operations were hampered by the explosions of that live ammunition. The crash was bad enough. I shudder to think what would have happened if that jet plane had gone a mile or two further and had dropped on one of the big steel factories of Sheffield. Not only would the crash have been worse, but the exploding ammunition would have created in all probability hundreds of casualties.
It is on the point of the plane's carrying live ammunition that I join issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who has already sent me a reply to my Question in which he says that it is essential to have live ammunition on aeroplanes of this kind. I see no reason for that at all. Aeroplanes not engaged on target practice or on operations where they have to shoot should be prohibited from carrying live ammunition, because if they crash the subsequent explosions are a danger to life and limb. That is the simple point which I wish to make to the Under-Secretary of State today. I understand that he has now been appointed to another office, but I want him to give a pledge to the House that the points I am now making will be passed to the Prime Minister or to the Defence Minister—either or both—and that the House may have some reply to assuage the feelings of people, not only in Sheffield but in other places where there have been crashes and where the rescue work has been hampered in this way.
All target practice should be done well out to sea. The machines which are carrying the ammunition should, therefore, be stationed near to the sea. If that


is impossible, then at least their courses should be so plotted that there is little danger to urban populations. I suggest that an instruction should be given to the Royal Air Force—and, perhaps, a recommendation made through the Prime Minister to the United States Air Force—that unless aircraft actually need live ammunition for their operations, the carrying of it should be prohibited in future. That is essential.
I do not worry so much about the fact that aircraft cannot be guaranteed not to crash sometimes, but I am concerned that when a machine does crash the dangers caused by its falling shall not be intensified by the explosion of live ammunition unnecessarily carried. I ask that a statement should be made to the House as soon as possible to the effect that such an instruction has been issued.

4.3 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I do not want to deal at any great length with the points made by the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) in the first part of his speech, except to say that I think that it was perfectly reasonable and proper for the Prime Minister to ask the Air Ministry to deal with this question. The Air Ministry is the Department which answers for the activities of the United States Air Force in this country, and is also fully qualified and able to deal with points of technical detail that may arise in the course of investigations and inquiries. I cannot, therefore, accept the accusation that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Defence has behaved in any way discourteously to the hon. Member.

Mr. Winterbottom: I am not accusing the Prime Minister of being discourteous to me—that does not matter. I am accusing the Prime Minister of being discourteous to Sheffield—and that does matter.

Mr. Ward: I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Member that the Prime Minister has been in any way discourteous to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
However, I do not want to minimise at all the importance which I attach to this matter. Of course, this disaster is most distressing, and I am sure that the House will join with me in expressing sympathy

to the relatives of the deceased and those who were injured in this tragic accident. As the hon. Member will probably know, the United States Ambassador sent an expression of his profound sympathy and his Government's distress to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and General Wilson commanding the United States Third Air Force in the United Kingdom also expressed his deepest regrets and offered the use of any United States Air Force facilities or personnel such as hospital or medical assistance.
The report of the United States Air Force Board of Investigation will not be completed until later this week, and I am therefore precluded, and will indeed be so for some time, from making detailed comments upon the cause of this accident.
The bare facts which I can give the House are that a United States Air Force F-84.F fighter, abandoned by its pilot, crashed on Lodge Moor hospital about five miles west of Sheffield. The pilot is reported to have baled out at a height of about 3,000 feet and landed at Hathersage, about five miles from the hospital, suffering from shock and minor injuries. The aircraft was based at and came from the R.A.F. station at Sculthorpe in Norfolk, and was one of the United States Air Force fighters stationed in this country and pledged to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
One patient in the hospital was killed; 10 were injured, though I am glad to say not seriously; and considerable damage was done to the hospital. All that is very regrettable and distressing. The procedure for submitting claims for injury and damage has been explained to the relatives of the deceased, the injured and the hospital authorities, and I can certainly give an assurance that claims will be dealt with quickly and will be given every possible sympathetic consideration.
I would like to assure the House that accidents of this kind are fortunately rare. Indeed, since the beginning of 1946 only one person has been killed and two injured on the ground as a result of aircraft of the Royal Air Force being abandoned. The single fatal casualty resulted from a mid-air collision in which the impact in the air threw both pilots out of their aircraft.
Pilots of both Air Forces do their utmost to ensure that if an aircraft has to be abandoned full regard is had for


the safety of the public on the ground. The rarity of an accident such as this is, I think, a tribute to the skill and the care exercised by pilots in this way. Hon. Members will doubtless recall several instances where pilots have preferred to crash with their aircraft rather than abandon them because of their concern for public safety. In particular, I would mention the instance in February of this year when a United States Air Force pilot was killed staying with his aircraft to avoid crashing on a housing estate in Great Yarmouth.
I have no doubt at all that everything is done to avoid accidents of this kind. I would mention particularly the fact that where an aircraft is under control from the ground at the time that it has to be abandoned, special care is taken to vector it towards open country.
The hon. Member has questioned the need for the carriage of live ammunition in aircraft, and I think that was the score on which he had the greatest anxiety. Let me first of all make it clear for the record that no one in Lodge Moor was killed or injured as a result of ammunition exploding.

Mr. Winterbottom: I did not say that. I said that rescue work was hampered.

Mr. Ward: I did not suggest that the hon. Member had said it, but it is as well to have this statement on the record for those who are studying the matter: no one was killed or injured by ammunition exploding.
The carriage of ammunition by aircraft of the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force is necessary, and to place restrictions on it, such as were suggested, would, I am quite sure, interfere to an unacceptable degree with operational training and, indeed, would be bound to affect the operational efficiency of the two Air Forces.

Mr. Winterbottom: Will the Minister explain why ammunition has to be carried on an operation for instrument testing? That is the simple question which the people of Sheffield are asking.

Mr. Ward: If I may go on with my speech, I will deal with the matter; I have not finished with it yet.
I am advised that the risk of live ammunition being ignited in an aircraft crash is quite remote unless a fire occurs.

In the event of fire, there is no risk of a mass explosion but individual rounds may be set off and in this case they may be propelled to a distance of 50–75 yards. The results of any such explosion are fortunately unlikely to cause serious injury, but I agree with the hon. Member for Brightside that they have a deterrent effect upon those trying to carry out rescue operations. I would add that in the case of the United States Air Force in this country there is no record of any major claim arising from the explosion of ammunition after an aircraft crash.
Clearly, an aircraft engaged in a training exercise involving the firing of live ammunition must carry ammunition. There are also occasions—and this may well be one—on which an aircraft has to carry ammunition in its ammunition boxes, although the guns may not be charged, because that gives it the right weight and balance which it needs.

Mr. George Darling: Sand could be put in the ammunition boxes.

Mr. Ward: I am advised that the weight has to be properly distributed and the correct load carried. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Brightside that it would be as well to await the findings of the investigation into this matter, because I have no doubt whatever that the investigation will go into the reasons for which ammunition was being carried. Very likely there will be a perfectly good explanation. It is being investigated and I am certainly not in a position to anticipate the findings.
All the evidence available, both to the United States Air Force and to the Royal Air Force, shows that not only is the risk of casualties to people on the ground, as a result of an aircraft being abandoned in the air, extremely small, but also the number of casualties from the explosion of live ammunition as a result of aircraft accidents is negligible.
I therefore suggest that the policy as it stands and the regulations governing these matters should not be altered at the expense of the operational efficiency of the force unless the need for it is great enough, and, on the evidence, I do not think the need for a change of policy exists. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his speech will be carefully studied at the Air Ministry, and I have no doubt that my successors will consider carefully whether any


change of policy is needed, but I hope that I have convinced the hon. Gentleman that the risk is so small that no change of policy is required.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: It may be true that we shall have to await the results of the inquiry before we find out why this particular plane was carrying live ammunition in these circumstances, but I think that my hon. Friends will be disturbed to learn from the Under-Secretary of State for Air that to test a plane with the appropriate weights it must carry live ammunition. We do not know why this was necessary in this case.
The hon. Gentleman is Under-Secretary of State of Air—at present, at any rate—and, therefore, responsible for practices in the Royal Air Force. Are we to understand from him that it is considered by the Ministry essential that when a Royal Air Force plane is on practice flights, and it is desired to find out how it will react to certain conditions, including the weight of a full load of ammunition, it is necessary that live ammunition should be carried? Is it not possible for the Ministry to consider an alternative form of ballast, such as sand, which would serve the same purpose?

Mr. G. Darling: Or blank ammunition?

Mr. Hynd: Blank ammunition would probably not be suitable because it does not contain lead.
However remote the possibility of a crash in which ammunition is scattered about, I am surprised to hear that ammunition of the size of the present air fighting ammunition, scattering at a distance of fifty to seventy-five yards although not fired from the barrel of the gun, is not likely to cause serious harm. Is it not possible for some alternative ballast to be used, because however remote these accidents may be, they can happen, as is shown by this particular case, and lead to very serious consequences? May we have an assurance from the Under-Secretary that his Department have not overlooked the possibility of this, and that they will consider whether it is vital that complete sets of live ammunition should be carried under these conditions?

Mr. Ward: I am advised that when aircraft are engaged on flights requiring the carriage of a full war load, the ammunition is carried in boxes, although the guns are not charged. There certainly may be other ways of doing this, but I am sure that anyone who has examined a fighter aircraft and has seen how carefully the ammunition is stowed in such a small space, would not expect, without very careful discussion and investigation at the Air Ministry, that it would be possible or practicable to substitute some other kind of ballast for live ammunition.
The anxiety expressed by hon. Members will certainly be put to my successors at the Air Ministry, and I am sure that they will consider with great care all the points that have been made.

Mr. Hynd: The Under-Secretary has expressed surprise that this proposal has been made and he has assured us that he will examine it.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: Two points gravely disturb me. One is the question of training flights. I understand that this was an American aircraft from an American air base on a training flight. I should have thought that in the wide open spaces of the United States training flights could operate with far greater safety than here. I am not developing any anti-American theme, and I do not want to do so, but one would have thought that pilots sent from the United States over here would have been properly trained and that no further training flights of this kind would have been needed over here.
Secondly, if training flights are needed and they involve the carrying of ammunition, they should not be sent over populated areas of this country. Apparently, this aircraft came from Norfolk. If a training flight involved the carrying of live ammunition from Norfolk, the aircraft should have gone east instead of west. Then, if anything happened, the explosion would have taken place over the North Sea and not over the populated city of Sheffield. I cannot accept any of the curious excuses and special pleading which have come from the Under-Secretary about the carrying of live ammunition on a training flight which was westward from Norfolk over populated areas of this country. Nothing the hon.


Gentleman has said will comfort people in the populated areas of this country who might have an aircraft full of ammunition falling upon them.
We thoroughly understand that aircraft might drop from the skies through all kinds of accidents, but why in heaven's name they should have to carry live ammunition when travelling over England I do not know. Nothing the hon. Gentleman has said has suggested to me any excuse for this practice. It does not seem intelligent either from the point of view of military training, of aircraft training, or anything else. I am confident that none of the statements made in his speech will comfort anyone. I suggest that this question should be inquired into more thoroughly so that we have a proper explanation of why this aircraft was carrying live ammunition over England.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I want to question the idea that this plane had to carry a certain amount of weight. This accident happened not far from my constituency. It could have been that that aircraft came to a standstill in the middle of one of the steel furnaces in that area. Then the live ammunition would have created havoc in perhaps hundreds of homes in the area.
It is all nonsense to suggest that blank ammunition of the same weight could not have been carried. Those of us who have spent time instructing boys in the use of ammunition know how easy it is to take out a few threads of cordite so that the ammunition is rendered harmless. The objection about weight is a lame excuse. If it is packed carefully in belts it is a matter of meticulous mathematical calculation, but even those belts could be filled with blank ammunition and one or two empty boxes put in to give the necessary weight to the aircraft.
We are not suggesting that a particular air force deliberately set out to harm the public. That would be a very foolish thing to suggest. What we are suggesting is that in peace time when flights are made over thickly populated districts

of that type where there are steel furnaces, blast furnaces, rolling mills and what have you, every care and precaution should be taken. I express the hope that in future when aircraft must carry a certain weight, the ammunition will be blank. As in the case of dead bodies, it would be the same weight but harmless.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I want to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) and to say that my hon. Friends and I are not satisfied with the explanation which has been given by the Under-Secretary of State.
Even though it might be said that the danger of ammunition exploding was so small as to make the matter in the past one of a very tiny risk, obviously now the situation has changed. An accident has occurred in which somebody has been killed and others seriously injured. It was evident from the accounts of eye witnesses of the disaster that the explosion of ammunition was a very serious additional hazard.
I ask the Under-Secretary or his successor to convey to the United States Air Force our feeling that, quite apart from the very valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), there are plenty of places in this country and out at sea where training flights, particularly those with which some risk may be involved, could be undertaken instead of over closely-packed industrial areas.
Secondly, will the Minister and the United States Air Force give careful consideration to the complete elimination of the carrying of live ammunition of any kind on a purely training operation? I agree that we must await the full inquiry report, but I hope that it will become available to Members of this House who represent the constituents involved in the accident. I hope that by then we shall also have a satisfactory statement as to future policy.

RIVER THAMES (POLLUTION)

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: First, I should like to congratulate the Minister who is to reply to the debate. I do not think that anybody will have any doubt that he deserves his promotion. I am particularly pleased that he is still in his old office for the moment so that he can answer the debate on a subject about which he knows quite a lot. The hon. Gentleman has a high respect for back benchers and their Adjournment debates and does not mind being detained late in the day.
I have a unique distinction in that this is the third year in succession that I have had the last of the Adjournment debates. I take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of wishing yourself and Mr. Speaker, and all the officials and police officers connected with the House, and the Minister, a merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year.
The subject I wish to raise does not conform with the spirit of the festive season. Its title is "The Stench from the River Thames" but I make no apology for raising it, because it is a matter of paramount importance to tens of thousands of people, not only in my constituency but in neighbouring constituencies on Thames-side.
It was with some interest that we read a report in the Star of 15th December, which read:
Mr. Justice Danckwerts, in the Chancery Division today, threatened to send to prison the 32 members of Sevenoaks Rural District Council unless they showed greater effort in carrying out a scheme for preventing pollution of the River Eden, at Edenbridge.
When comparison is made of the pollution of the River Thames as against that of the River Eden, many of us shudder to think what would happen to the county councillors of London if justice were done.
I have some first-hand experience of this matter. On August Bank Holiday Monday, I was a guest of the Erith Regatta and was on the Thames for most of the day. For three or four days following I still had a headache from the stench, and I had a sore throat for a considerable time. From very close to the water, I saw that at times during the day it was not

like water, but was flowing like black treacle. People who live in the locality—men of 40 years of age—recall how they used to enjoy swimming in the river in their boyhood. The change that has taken place is disastrous for people in the locality.
I know that there have been many meetings about this question and much correspondence, but, despite all that has been said and written, there is in my constituency a feeling that the matter is not treated as seriously as it should be. It is only in recent weeks that a very law-abiding citizen, a butcher, who has never done anything like this before—Mr. Tommy Clayton, of Belvedere—felt so deeply about it that he and several other butchers set about organising a petition—it is quite a substantial petition—of complaint about the nuisance.
In recent weeks, the Erith and District Trades Council has also had a petition against this nuisance, and it contains several thousand names. I hope, therefore, that when I am speaking tonight it is with the support—in an apathetic age, the amazing support—of constituents who feel that everything that might be done has not been done. Erith Trades Council feels so deeply about it that it has set up a vigilance committee with a view to keeping a very close watch on what happens in the future and also with the object of reducing as much as possible the time the nuisance may continue.
It is rather revealing that exactly a hundred years ago there was an inquiry into the matter of London's sewers and of what comes out of sewers, and I have the evidence on that matter of a Mr. Bazalgette, who was later knighted. On 25th July, 1855, he gave evidence to a special Committee appointed by the First Commissioner of Works to consider the proposals of the Metropolitan Board of Works for the main drainage of the Metropolis, and this is an extract from what he said:
The deleterious effects of the sewage deposited on the pavements, as shown in the case of the silversmiths' shops in Regent Street, the sulphuretted hydrogen and ammonia from the road, refuse and exhalations arising in consequence, did considerable damage to the silver with which they came into contact.
It is even worse today, one hundred years later, for in my constituency it is almost impossible to keep clean articles of copper or silver or brass. The speed


with which they tarnish is amazing. A local resident, a man in a very high position, watched a fireman cleaning one of the fire engines at Erith, and he said that he started to clean the front and worked round to the back of the fire engine, and that by the time he got to the back, the front had already become tarnished again. His testimony is that, "You could see the metal work turning dull within a few seconds." The evidence of the fireman who attempted to clean the fire engine would have been very substantial evidence in support of my case, but I am informed that the language he used was unparliamentary, so I cannot repeat it here.
In July and August Her Majesty's telegraph ship "Monarch," the largest cable-laying ship in the world, lay at the Ocean Cable Works at Erith to load cable. It was found necessary to work the crew overtime to keep the metal parts of the ship clean. To the seamen, many of whom had had world-wide experience, the speed with which the metal parts tarnished after having been cleaned was amazing.
It is not only metal work that suffers. The polluted atmosphere has a disastrous effect on paint work, especially cream coloured and other light coloured paint work. Shortly after it has been newly painted the paint has a characteristic purplish black tint. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will be able to visualise that it is a horrible and sickening sight.
Because of damage to paint work the Erith Yacht Club has moved its larger boats away from Erith. That is because of the heavy expense of frequent repainting and the hard work of keeping the metal parts clean, hard work which is soon made vain by the polluted atmosphere. People find that it destroys the pleasure they have in owning the boats. But housewives cannot move their houses. They have to suffer this misery.
I well remember how, during last summer, which was a glorious summer, the stench was, in consequence, all the more intense. I know of one family who came to Erith from Rochdale for a holiday and had to return home because they found that the stench in August was absolutely intolerable. Erith Borough Council has spent a good deal of money in developing the riverside. It is a pleasant place where the local inhabitants

should be able to sit and watch the river traffic go by, a place where bands play, where a big hotel is being built and gardens are provided in which people can obtain liquid refreshment. But this terrible nuisance destroys the aim of the local council in making the locality a place of pleasure for the inhabitants.
I should like to read a letter from a Mrs. Michell, who lives in the district:
Dear Mr. Dodds,
Further to our meeting of Friday last, regarding river pollution (or as I would put it, the filthy stench from the River Thames), I would urge you to do all in your power to combat this vile menace. As a housewife and an industrial worker, I can speak with authority of the damage which emanates from this source. Speaking from an industrial point of view, copper wire discolours within one hour of cleaning, and, domestically speaking, all porcelain articles, paint work and metal ware take weeks to get clean and very often are ruined in the process. The point I want to stress is—as these things are being contaminated, what injurious effects can this have on human and animal life?
I am not putting forward that it is injurious to life. I am saying that it can be a misery, particularly during fine weather, to those people who live within reasonable distance of the Thames.
I am indebted to London County Council for the booklet, Centenary of London's Main Drainage, 1855 to 1955, which states that conditions grew so intolerable that the Government decided to set up a new authority in 1855, the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was charged with the primary duty of maintaining the main sewers and constructing work to prevent sewage entering the Thames within the London area. The engineer of the Board, Joseph Bazalgette submitted his plans, which were adopted by the Board, for preventing sewage from flowing into the Thames in or near the Metropolis. In a subsequent Act of Parliament, in 1855, it was provided that the sewage of the Metropolis should be prevented
…as far as may be practicable…
from passing into the river within the Metropolis.
In Bazalgette's scheme the flow of all the sewers of London was to be carried to outfall sewers which, in turn, would discharge it into the river below the County of London, on the north side at Barking, 11 miles from London Bridge, and on the south side at the Crossness outfall


in Erith, 13 miles below London Bridge. There are altogether 100 miles of sewers and the result of the scheme is that Erith is in a particularly difficult situation in which it seems to have the "benefit" of the whole of the' outfall of Greater London.
I know that devices have since been employed to minimise the nuisance. Nevertheless, it is the plea of local people that the nuisance is greater now than it has ever been in living memory. They also feel that whatever plans there may be for the future, those plans are not going forward quickly enough.
There is reference in the L.C.C.'s booklet to the southern outfall works at Crossness, in the Erith constituency. It states that, having regard to the Government's investment programme, Government approval to extensions of the southern outfall works was given on the understanding that the work would be deferred until the period 1958–62. It adds that this restriction is now being removed and that the council intends to start as soon as possible on a £6 million scheme, but it is doubtful whether the original completion date can now be advanced very much. That is what we are worrying about. We feel that, as the scheme started sooner, the completion date, in view of the nuisance, should be much sooner than is contemplated.
Finally, the booklet reveals that the residential people of London get their efficient sewerage service at a cost of 1d. per person per week; and that covers the expense of operation, maintenance and repayment of debt. We in Erith feel that that is cheap, and probably is largely at the expense of the people of Erith and the locality.
I was astonished—most people must have been—to learn that the question of dredging is a matter for the Port of London Authority. There is a great deal of evidence—I am sorry that I have not time to give it—on this point. I have a letter from a headmaster who asserts:
Before the war it was possible to walk on shingle at low tide in the riverside area. Now there is a considerable depth of smelly mud.
There is a great deal of testimony on this subject. I wrote to the Minister about the dredging, and the Parliamentary Secretary replied that the Port of London

Authority had as many dredgers now as it had previously. I have evidence that the dredgers are never seen in the spots where they used to be seen before the war. Watermen tell me that they are now seen more often in the vicinity of Tilbury Docks. That is no use to Erith. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter.
We are also concerned about the fact that industrial premises are pouring more and more pollution into the river. I believe it would be out of order if I pursued that point, because it is a matter for the Port of London Authority. However, I would ask the Minister whether we have to wait until something serious happens, or have the people of Erith to march on London? It may be the case that certain people who have a job to do are not doing it as well as they ought. I hope that before there is a rising in the Erith district somebody will take some notice of the stuff going into the river there. The people who work there are asking that hon. Members go to see it. Those who have been to see it say that it really is shocking in 1955.
I hope I have said enough, and, also, that I have given sufficient time for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply. The people of the locality hope that there will be evidence that the matter is being taken much more seriously. Any help or advice which the Parliamentary Secretary can give will be deeply appreciated, and if he has something kind to say, it will be looked upon as one of the best Christmas boxes which the district has ever had.

4.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I thank the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) for his preliminary remarks. Certainly, I take no exception to his raising this subject at this or any other time. It is not an inappropriate subject for even a very minor swan-song.
The problem of pollution and smells in the Thames Estuary is a very real one. There is no wish on the part of my right hon. Friend, his Department or any of the public bodies concerned, to minimise it. There is no danger to public health. I think that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford accepts that. This is a matter of nuisance in the various ways which he has enumerated, and it is, of


course, worse after warm, dry weather such as we had in the summer. It is an extensive nuisance and it is natural and proper that the hon. Member should complain about it, because a large number of his constituents are affected.
I should first like to make it clear that the duty of preventing pollution of the tidal Thames—I stress tidal—rests, by Statute, not with my right hon. Friend, but with the Port of London Authority. The Authority has powers of control over discharges of all kinds, with one important exception which I will mention in a moment. It is not responsible in the exercise of those powers to any Minister, and I want to be careful in which I have to say not to trespass on its ground.
The Authority has a job to do and, if I may say so, it does it very well. However, it is up against difficult problems and it is because of those problems that my right hon. Friend, who is responsible for, and who has had some experience of, the prevention of pollution in non-tidal rivers, takes a close interest in this question of tidal Thames pollution.
One of the biggest problems, possibly the biggest, has been the discharge to the middle reaches of the tidal river of effluents from London's main drainage system. I do not know whether it is news to the hon. Member, but through the London County Council's Northern and Southern Outfall Works more than 300 million gallons of sewage effluent flow into the tidal river daily. It has been clear for many years that if the river water is ever to be made any cleaner and the smells reduced in the stretches near Erith, more purification plant must be provided at the two London County Council works.
The quality of the discharges from those works, however, is exempted by Statute from the jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority, so it is unfair to blame the Authority for any nuisance to which these London County Council discharges give rise from time to time, particularly as the Port of London Authority has for a long time regularly been drawing attention to the problem that these discharges cause. It is not really fair to blame the London County Council. It is not sheltering behind its exemption from the jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority. The two authorities together are actively seeking improvement in the river's condition.
Just before the war, soon after it was first apparent that there would have to be some big improvement in the discharges from its works, the London County Council installed an additional purification plant to give extra treatment to 60 million gallons of sewage passing daily through its works. That plant was severely damaged during the war. After the war the London County Council, in full agreement with the Port of London Authority, concluded that massive further extensions to its sewage treatment plant should go forward as quickly as possible.
I need not remind the hon. Member that at that time there were various obstacles to undertakings on such a scale, and I shall not treat him to a history of the negotiations which went on to get that work started. Suffice it to say that early in 1953 the L.C.C. was at last told that there was no objection to its carrying on with further stages of the work. In 1954, the whole apparatus of controls over building and civil engineering were removed, and the London County Council scheme, costing a total of £14 million, is now in full swing.
The first stage, completed earlier this year—that was £1,600,000 worth of new sedimentation tanks at the Northern Outfall—has already resulted in a marked improvement of the quality of the effluent. The second stage that is now in progress is a scheme for £4 million worth of secondary treatment plant for a further 60 million gallons of daily flow; and that, added to the first, should, of course, lead to considerable further improvement. I mention this because it needs to be stressed that there has not been in this matter unnecessary dragging of the feet by the London County Council or the Port of London Authority.
Of course, the London County Council scheme will take a long time to complete, and it is perhaps unfortunate that the Council was not able to start it earlier than it did; but it is no use going back over that ground now. Each successive scheme will bring about an improvement in the tidal river's condition—an improvement which will be noticeable to those who suffer most and those in whom the hon. Member is most interested.
I ought to mention, apart from this, the smaller sewerage authorities which are concerned in this question in other stretches, and I ought to mention some


of the things which have been done there. The Port of London Authority have left the smaller authorities in no doubt about what is expected of them. In consequence, a very large number of smaller improvement schemes have been put in hand or completed since the war, and this despite the difficulties which the sewarage authorities have come up against over money, steel and so on.
In Northfleet, Gravesend and the Medway towns, additional purification plant has been installed at a capital cost of £175,000. At Dartford, the West Kent Main Sewerage Board is about to provide extra treatment plant at a cost of £1,400,000. The Wandle Joint Sewerage Board has carried out sewage work improvements costing over £250,000. The Hogsmill Valley Sewerage Board is carrying out a purification works programme costing nearly £1 million. The Richmond Main Sewerage Board has reconstructed its sewage works at a cost of £400,000. At the Mogden sewage works, in West Middlesex, and at Thurrock, in Essex, other work has been done.
All these—this is by no means an exhaustive list—are places where minor schemes of improvement have been or are being or will be undertaken. All these improvement schemes, together with the major effort by the London County Council of £14 million to which I have referred, represent a really substantial effort to counter the trend of deterioration which has been noted in the tidal river's conditions during the last few years.
I think that they give some reason for hoping that from now onwards the total pollution of the river will steadily diminish, and that the smells which afflict the constituents of the hon. Member, and which are a very real nuisance, will diminish.
I want to say something about research work. The Port of London Authority has been concerned for some years about whether the standard of quality of many of the effluents discharged to the tidal river should not be raised higher than it is now. It is anxious to review the standards required for discharges of industrial waste, which is an important factor here, and which is a subject in which I know the hon. Member has taken an interest. The Authority has been concerned with the possible effects on the

estuary of large-scale extractions of fresh water for public supply from the non-tidal Thames above Teddington.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the idea that is getting abroad—I do not know whether it is a legend or not—that the wholesale use of detergents is having its effect on the Thames and stopping it from purifying itself from time to time? They have become an added and major irritant.

Mr. Deedes: I know that there is the question of synthetic detergents and the effect upon the river, and I will say something about that later.
These are very big issues. It was for that reason that four years ago the then Minister, in consultation with the Port of London Authority, appointed a widely representative Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Pippard, to steer a full technical investigation into the effects on the tidal river of the various discharges which were going into it. It reached an early conclusion that improvements at the London County Council sewage works were a prerequisite for improving the condition of the river. It was this view which clinched the Government's decision, three years ago, to allow the L.C.C. to go ahead with its major scheme. The effect of all the other discharges, however, is much more difficult to assess.
The Water Pollution Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which has been carrying out this technical investigation, has had an enormous task, and is only now in a position to make final conclusions available to the Pippard Committee. The calculations are being done with the aid of the National Physical Laboratory's computing apparatus at Teddington, and there are already indications that there will be dividends from this lengthy and rather extensive research. I hope that the hon. Member will feel able some time to accept the invitation extended to him in the letter which he mentioned—an invitation from the Director of Water Pollution Research—to visit the Laboratory and see the work on this problem.

Mr. Dodds: I accept, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deedes: I think that the hon. Member would find such a visit interesting and profitable.
If the conclusions of the Pippard Committee show that some radical measures are needed on the tidal river, beyond the sewage works extension schemes already in train, the Port of London Authority will have the full co-operation of the Government in measures which may be necessary to achieve these improvements. I wish to assure the hon. Member that the Port of London Authority is anxious to get a rapid and substantial improvement in the conditions of the river and I think that it is entitled to expect that everything practicable will be done to help in that task.
I wish now to return to the point about synthetic detergents raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). It may be a contribution, if only a marginal contribution, to the bad conditions on the river. There are nowadays present in all sewage—they do not appear to be entirely removed by purification processes at the sewage works—traces of the residues of the synthetic detergents which I think all housewives use. There is a Committee on Synthetic Detergents which has been going into this, and its final report, which I think we must await before deciding on any administrative action, will be in the hands of my right hon. Friend in a matter of weeks. I think we must wait to see what the experts advise before settling on any course of administrative action.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept on behalf of his constituents what I say as reasonably satisfactory, and it

remains only for me to wish you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member and others present and the officers of this House a very happy Christmas.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell: I have just completed 17 years in the service of the local authority within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), and I am a constituent of his. I cannot think of any service which he has rendered since 1945 which is more worthy than this. As the Minister is at present a "bird of passage" from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the Home Office, he may deal with this with a nice objectivity. But he would not deal with it in that manner were he living in the district. This area has done much to beautify itself and to raise its rateable value and build housing estates. All that effort is ruined by the stench from the River Thames. Of all the things which should have high priority in regard to finance, I know of nothing more important than this, and no nuisance which needs to be abated more urgently or to which any Government should more urgently apply their minds.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock, till Tuesday, 24th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.